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: Ron Struthers who wrote (31482)	4/8/1998 1:46:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Ron: Sorry, still don't buy it. The December 96 PR identified 6 holes with values ranging from .228 to .363 opt. It included a diagram illustrating that those holes were scattered throughout the 1 km grid. It compared these results to previous results from the same holes with values ranging from .037 to .068 opt. It attributed the new results to a "breakthrough" in the ASSAY technique, not to an improved recovery process. You now appear to be trying to suggest that investors were jumping to conclusions not warranted by the information put out by IPM. Sorry again, but that is an insult to my intelligence. I am already insulted enough for believing the hype put out by IPM. I refuse to be further insulted by this attempt to rewrite the IPM history book.

To: Ron Struthers who wrote (31482)	4/8/1998 2:18:00 AM
From: Amit Ghate	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

>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.< Is there any reason why they didn't do this? Seems to me that one would always want to correlate assay with recovery, so why not always work on splits? Amit

To: Ron Struthers who wrote (31482)	4/8/1998 3:35:00 AM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Mostly agree with your account, Ron, but have trouble with "These numbers are all potentially very economic, especially when we have ample evidence that suggest PGE grades are roughly double gold", in that it seems to me that most or all of the DDs just gloat over the gold equivalent and hope someone will come up with a process. Since neither electrowinning nor Johnson/Letting nor ion-exchanging appear proven and/or cheap at this point, could it be that much of the problem arises from the complex mixture of difficultly separable metals rather than microcluster mumbo-jumbo? Flame away, everyone :-) DrBob