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: O. H. Rundell who wrote (29660)	1/7/1998 5:52:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 35569

<<..The issues that I was most interested in were those of fire assaying of the original drill samples and chain of custody. My understanding was that now that we have a viable fire assay, we would be applying that technique to the original drill samples and perhaps to some additional drilling as required by our consultant(s)..>> I would think so ( fie assaying the original 1 square kilometer grid). Also, I think that COC, is an issue that is not fully understood. I think that there are still some Locked Up samples, other wise we would be dealing with disclaimers -which we are not, or some mitigating wording as to COC that was put out on 14 Nov PR ( 1997). Chuca P.S.- I think I will go read some Naxos - Le D. COC posts now.

To: O. H. Rundell who wrote (29660)	1/7/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

OH et al, I was rereading the press release again and since the reality is that I didn't write I am going to have to try to disect it. If I were to go into a "the glass is half full" mode then this is what I would read into it. Can you see this or find fault in this ? Multiple assay methods are being cross checked with previous gold and platinum values reported from the 1995/96 121 drill hole program on the 1 sq/km grid. The prime objective of the gold assaying portion of the R&D programs is to compile the data on the 1-sq kilometer drill grid leading to the company's first formal resource statement. According to this several assay procedures were used to try and determine what the accuracy of the precious numbers actually was. Several methods were used in the interest of data necassary for bankability and possible mining operation financing. Drill hole 111 from the grid was the first in the most recent comparisons, with assaying carried out utilizing 25-foot composite samples, a possible mining thickness for Black Rock. I have heard talk about the property possibly being mined in sheets. Is IPM compiling data in 25 foot sections in order to determine the sections of the property that can be mined profitably ? If they had a known break even grade and did an analysis of the average grade in 25 foot sections then they would know what areas could be mined profitably and what could not. This would be a must IMHO in determining a resource status. After all they shouldn't be able to claim metals that they are not going to be able to mine profitably as part of the resource. The independent laboratory results from wet chemical assays with ATOMIC ABSORPTION (AA) finish are detailed below: DRILL HOLE 111 Depth in Feet Ounces per Ton 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 Average over 100 feet Previous Average over 100 feet Wet Chemical (leach) Assay from 2 Labs 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.07 This recent assay testing has confirmed the previous results to within acceptable levels of assay variability. As it said previously, they used multiple assay methods. Did they only release those of the AA ? Disclaimer : As a rule of thumb I have stopped my communication with the company and those closely associated with the company. This post and all subsequent posts are nothing more than supposition of my own twisted way of thinking. Love Always Chuck