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: Jafco who wrote (33031)	6/16/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 35569

Jafco, thanks, I made long into short, for ipmcf pertinent. -------------------------------------------------------------------- in coming months, all the scandals that drove prices down are also leading to the most strict assaying and valuing standards in the history of mining, and thanks to the brilliant use of modern technology, a few innovative companies will make huge inroads over the coming years. The assay and recovery technology of the precious metals has remained quite stagnant and neglected during the past years. However, the industry has developed new and better ways of using much more sophisticated equipment to mine the base metals, more technology has been developed in the recovery of the base metals and also much tighter environmental controls have been improved and invoked but the recovery of the precious metals is still based on the old ways. No major mining company wants to have to "revamp" their entire system just to accommodate new ways of recovery of the precious metals. The same for major assay houses. They have no intention of changing their procedures for anybody. They are making money, why "rock the boat"? However, the determination and recovery of the precious metals using the "new technology", what Mr. Slanker calls a mythical methodology, can be proven by scientific methods and can be explained in a scientific manner. On page 2, second paragraph, the author states that the new technology cannot be proven by conventional knowledge. If he is calling an accredited scientist like Professor Claude Lupis of the MIT University in Boston a liar and such well known assayers and metallurgists as Al Johnson, Greg Iseman, The Saskatchewan Research Council of Canada, Robert Fischer of the Simplot Mining Company and many others, liars, then... As an example, if it won't fire assay, it ain't there. Talk about a myth. I.P.M. (International Precious Metals). Several years ago Lee Furlong, then the president of IPM and Paul Mentzer, project manager, visited me at my lab. I am quite familiar with their ore, having assisted Greg Iseman, of the Iseman Consulting Company, run some of their ore samples, as a favor to him. They asked me to help find a fire assay method that would prove that they had at least .05 au in their ore. I did so, several methods, verified by Greg Iseman. Then I did 5 assays in front of everybody, using a certain technique that is available to anybody, all you have to do is ask for it. Using .5 grams of their ore, COC, I recovered, by fire, cupels with a seeable and weighable precious metal bead in the center. Later, I was told that they had taken the beads to a local electron microscope facility for analysis and they assayed the precious metals in varying percentages. Well, if the bead weighed .10 mgs and you used .5 grams, .1 x 60 (.5 grams into a 30 gram assay ton) you would have 6 opt of precious metals in the ore. What I am wondering is why didn't Furlong or Mentzer show their high-priced consulting company what they could do. In querying Furlong, his retort was this, "Our investors have to be able to have us produce numbers using the old tried and true methods. If I was in charge, I would go ahead with this type of info, but I am not in charge,". At that time he was the President!!! A lot of trusting investors really took a shellacking. IPM could have been in production years ago instead of where they are now.

To: Jafco who wrote (33031)	6/17/1998 9:44:00 AM
From: Ron Struthers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Hello Joe, some good points in the article, but I don't think it is of any use for GPGI to slam IPM, it is common occurence in some of their writings and always looks to me as if theyr are trying to persuade IPM shareholders to buy GPGI This is a poor mentality also and does the industry no good. Many of us have been saying for some time that there needs to be an industry group made up of various companies and scientist etc. and work together. More could be accomplished IPM and GPGI have taken different routes to prove their projects. GPGI by small scale production and IPM by a more conventional route of trying to prove a deposit and go to feasibility. This involves to different action plans. Either can succeed or fail GPGI is a BB listed company and IPM, WAS listed on the Nasdaq Small Cap. There is a big difference in what can be reported and how. I think GPGI would do much better for itself to keep their discussion to their own progress, rather than running down one they don't agree with. After all they have been at this for 2 decades and there is still no mine and managment does not have a track record of making mines, who are they to say. Don't get me wrong, I am not against GPGI and hope they succeed and believe they have made significant progress. I also stuck my neck out for them in rebutting Slanker. His comments just got to far out from reality. In fact this latest slam by Slanker started several weeks earlier with me. He obviuosly has an adjenda Ron