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: BillyZoom who wrote (31017)	3/16/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<<..Higher recovery numbers do not necessarily mean economical recovery. IMHO this is new science and to commit to one process before the resource calculation is ludicrous ..>> Stupid is as stupid does. Hey -Forrest! Run faster. Are you saying that HIGHER isn't HIGHER. Happy St Pattys! Chuca-kisshighernumbers-don'tludicrrous'em.

To: BillyZoom who wrote (31017)	3/16/1998 6:27:00 PM
From: Mike H.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Robert, Just a couple of comments from a sometimes shareholder <<2) "Verge of bankruptcy" is a heavy statement to make. Can you prove this with facts? Financing comes with dilution. What are the number of issued and outstanding shares of MXAM and IPM. Why can't IPM still finance and have less shares out than MXAM?>> If you simply compare their assets against their liabilities the company appears to be in a tenuous financial situation, and add to that their burn rate... <<3) IPM has already seen and had option on Hewletts process. They are proving COC resource first and while this is going on they are trying different methods of extraction to see which one will be optimum for the final bankable resource/recovery cost analysis. Higher recovery numbers do not necessarily mean economical recovery. IMHO this is new science and to commit to one process before the resource calculation is ludicrous and would be viewed as hype (previously IPM's big mistake). When the resource numbers are finalized then the results of the different recovery methods IPM has tested can be analyzed for cost effectiveness and bankable feasibility. You say IPM has no recovery process yet it is only logical that in the worst case scenario IPM can use Hewletts process any time they like? I would think this would be in Runyon's and his holding companies best interest.>> Is IPM now trying to define a resource without an economical recovery process? Why would it be in Runyons best interest to allow IPM to utilize MXAM's recovery process? I'm just trying to sort out where all these dirt companies are now.