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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (31463)	4/6/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 35569

The OUTLYER HOLE of 2.ish OPT was the real hot spot, that Mr Doyle said would NOT be considered as any thing but an OUTLYER HOLE at the AGM June 97 Meeting. The .25 s ish adding up to the majic .8 isg was the HOPEFULL to be verified by third party and the NEW Developed Fire Assay which was to be using a new lab; not a lab "A" and " B" but another NEW Lab was the hope for the B-D / Bateman Report ...as I remember. I had asked who the secret NEW LAB was and all I was told was that it was not Lab "A" and Lab "B", I subsequently heard a NAME of a Lab....was it Auric that I heard? Chuca

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (31463)	4/6/1998 10:15:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Larry, Did you go to the AGM? I don't remember meeting you if you did. My memory is not the best in the world but I remember that they were working on a dirt pile that they referred to as "play dirt". It was a pile of dirt that they had trenched or something from BRX that they were using for their experiments. The experiments with the FA, extraction etc... were taken from this pile from what I remember and they had drilled other holes that they had data from as well. We were the stupid ones that were playing with calculations throughout the entire property with those values. I don't know if I ever heard the term "hot spot" before but if I did then I don't remember but we should have considered that it was for our tentative valuations of the company. I have learned alot about the area and what is occurring in the area and about what will occur in the area and I have averaged down at these levels. If IPM does get delisted then I will average down even more. Ya'll can think that I am in love with the stock but that is not the case in my mind. I simply believe in what is going on in Arizona and believe that the metal markets will be turning as well. Will the events turn around as I believe they will ? Will IPM be delisted? Will the 2 coincide if they occur? I don't know but my money, my time and my efforts are betting on the fact that things will work out very well for me in the long run. Larry, I do understand and appreciate how you feel and why. Don't let it blind you to the rest of the information out there. Just a friendly word of advice from a cyber friend.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (31463)	4/8/1998 1:20:00 AM
From: Ron Struthers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

<<There was certainly no mention of .25opt being a "hot spot" in any of IPM's PR's, President's messages, or any other official communication from the company.>> Larry, I should have made it more clear, but what I was trying to say the .25 opt area was likely a higher grade (or hotter spot) than the area that Bateman tested. I have tried to explain to people that you cannot take a few samples from different areas and use different methods and make comparisons or come to any definite conclusion on the whole property. Many samples and averages are needed. The .25 opt was from a leach recovery process. The Bateman report was a fire assay on a different location. You can't compare the two. The only way this could have been done is if you split the samples, had Bateman FA their split and Auric run recovery on their split and compare. We would then have an idea of how efficient the recovery was to the fire assay. IPM reported 3 samples form an Auric fire assay. Three samples is not enough to make any reliable conclusion. The samples ranged from .15 to .8, quite a wide variation. The only thing you can assume from that is samples will be all over the place. You will have zeros and high ones. Look at the wide ranges on the original 121 holes The dissapointment to me in the November news was not the numbers, but the Auric recovery process was found as not commercially viable. What I conclude from all the info is the Auric leach recovery worked well in getting some good numbers but it was expensive to do and not consistent, which bankers would likely not lend on. The Auric fire assay was also not consistent enough. I think the Auric assay could quite often get a better number but it has to be pretty bullet proof if you are going to go to feasibility on the property. The FA that was confirmed, worked consistently. Bateman just had a short period of time so I think it could be improved upon. I believe the 1st sq. km will end up with an average somewhere between 0.08 opt Au and 0.15. the .25 is too high of a number to assume for the entire grid. However it may occur on another grid on the property. I would guess if the Bateman assay was done on the batch used for recovery of .25 it would have come back between 0.12 and .2. I don't think this original Bateman fire assay was working as well as the recovery. This is just my opinion from what I know, not IPMs These numbers are all potentially very economic, especially when we have ample evidence that suggest PGE grades are roughly double gold. <<If true, I find it to be quite irresponsible, downright misleading, and outright scandalous of IPM to issue PR after PR hyping .25 opt if they believed it was a "hot spot." Mentioning .25 opt is a hot spot in private while publically hyping .25 opt sounds like a violation of securities laws to me.>> IPM simply reported the results they got. Would it matter if it was .3 or .1, I think the market sold off because it was confused, that the numbers were different, Bateman being lower. There is nothing private about it, all you have to do is phone the company and ask the questions. I also think IPM did a poor job of reading the market place and not issuing a proper press release to communicate the results and what they meant You can look at 100s of press releases from mining companies on assay results and many of them will just highlight and report the best assays. The thing with IPM was the .25 was only one assay because it represented material from one area. They had to use one area (same sample to see if the results changed much). They were simply increasing the size of the batch run. They did do smaller batches from other areas and got similiar results with some lower and some higher than .25. There was mention of a higher grade run at the AGM, but IPM considered this too hot of an area and felt it misleading so it was not announced in the press release IPM just reported three assays from Auric before they turned it to 3rd party. If I was going to hype the stock, I think I would have kept reporting more assays I hope this explains things some and doesn't make it more confusing. This is the paragraph from a previous update on IPM from my newsletter ""RSA Update IPM Volume 3 # 10.10 Nov 17 1997 Many investors are disappointed that the confirmed grades on Friday were not a lot higher. There is one simple reason. In order for Bateman to conduct a verification program they had to take samples from an area that was not recently worked on and a location unknown to IPM and others untill after the fact. What is very revealing that I learned late yesterday is that the results reported on Friday compare very closely to drill results reported earlier by IPM on nearby drill holes. Again a confirmation that IPM has reported honest fact. The previous results of around 0.25 opt gold with the Auric fire assay was simply on an area of higher grade ore."" I might add to this the actual Auric fire assays were .15, .35 and .8. My .25 number just averaged the two lower assays and worked out to the same as the leach recovery method. Ron