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: Bill Jackson who wrote (29901)	1/17/1998
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Bill, the values on the first release were all relatively close together, between 2.8 and 3.3+ and were taken from three different depths each seperated by 100 feet. The later relaese was all from the same level and instead represents different stages of processing the ore prior to assay. Since the theory is that the process converts the ore to one more accessible to standard assay techniques you would expect to see large differences in values, increasing after each step. The 1.66 was taken before the process began. The 2.56 is from after the first stage of the process and is beginning to approach the numbers attained in the early December report. The surprise came in that after the final stage the number was .954. While this would be a great number for any standard deposit an increase was expected. In Ledoux's release they specifically mentioned that they were going to retest this stage of the process. The assumption being made is that a mistake was made in the final stage of the process. But even if you make the assumption that the final stage was performed correctly and decreased the yield common sense would say to just skip that stage as you have 2.56 which would be more than economically viable. Henry