Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Hartenbower who wrote (28995)	12/5/1997 5:40:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Check out IPM's web page---there is now a Summary of Assay and Recovery Milestones at Black Rock. Very interesting Note the chloride leach results they report for gold and platinum, which they say were reported at the AGM--they say they were .031 and .028, respectively...I do not recall this. Their PR from the AGM recounts sample 2 as being .318 and .284...is this a typo in the Summary? Overall, it appears that they have been able to physically recover much better grades than the fire assays they are now using...it also appears that the "wet chem" assays have provided much higher grades than fire assays. Are the fire assays underreporting the gold, so that a "fire assay factor" should be used that correlates to how much gold is really there? Regards, Otter

To: Joe Hartenbower who wrote (28995)	12/5/1997 6:13:00 PM
From: BobS	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Joe, You read alot more into my posting than is really there. Being unethical doesn't mean being a scam. IPM, and all other jr. gold mining companies, toe a fine line between promoting their play to create enough enthusiasm in the equity market to obtain financing ...and... releasing factual information. I think IPM for months has veered too much toward the promotion side. In my mind, that is unethical. Particularly, if it's intentional. I really don't think IPM is a scam. I've stated that before. And my reason for that belief is because in June the company became a U.S. reporting company, which means the company now falls under the US SEC laws. If I were a scam I certainly wouldn't open myself up to that. I'd stay away from SEC as long as I could. The weekend after 11/14, I spent several hours reading the past PRs and 10Q(s). I read them with an intent to answer the following questions. I was amazed as the answers I got. Anyone doing the same, will likely be surprised by what they find. 1. How do the assay results compare between releases? 2. How do the recovery results compare between releases? [You'll be amazed at how interchangeably 'assay' & 'recovery' are used. It's frequently difficult to tell whether results pertained to an assay process or a recovery process] 3. How are the roles of Behre Dolbear & Co., Inc. noted by IPM in the various releases? 4. What are the results of all the work Behre Dolbear & Co., Inc. has done in 1997? 5. What happened to the concentrate(s) sent to refiner(s)? 6. What happened to Lycopodium? 7. What happened to the Vearncombes? 8. What happened to Thomas Dodge and his work at BRN? 9. How much has IPM spent on penalties to Omega Investments? Spending 4 hours on this task was very helpful in deciphering the info IPM had released to date. bobs.