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 (29665)	1/7/1998 11:53:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	Respond to of 35569

O. H. It is my impression that they are going to do both Fire Assay and Wet Leach Assays, although not necessarily on all samples. The investing community, especially the regulators at the exchanges, seem to insist on FA results and IPM will likely do enough FA's to satisfy them. OTOH, financiers are mainly concerned with what can be recovered or what is verified by third parties, and if Bateman is willing to verify on the basis of wet assay results, IPM will likely do them for that purpose, especially if they are cheaper than FA's and give higher results, ie results more in line with what is expected from a recovery process. BTW, Charles had a good point on the 25' intervals being more in line with intervals which would likely be mined. Also, assaying over 25 ft intervals should cut the assay time and cost by 80% because each hole would only require 4 assays instead of the 20 required if they were to assay each 5 ft. Guess it depends on whether Bateman is willing to calculate reserves on the basis of the 25' samples instead of 5' sampling. I think it's a good move, myself. Alan