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: Paunch who wrote (33670)	8/12/1998 10:39:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 35569

Paunch, If BD has an insurer with deep pockets there it is. I am not sure how carefully the samples were taken by BD and watched etc., however if they signed off on that grade they must have. Is there one person who is marshalling the lawsuit? There needs to be some group formed for this purpose and not washing their laundry on SI as you can bet BD reads every post. Bill

To: Paunch who wrote (33670)	8/12/1998 11:05:00 PM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Paunch, There was some early work done by BD, 96, I think. IPM said it was chain of custody. The actual report says that BD observed IPM chain of custody one day and found it to be ok. After that IPM BoD, at a share holders meeting passed new by laws where by they did not have to disclose consultant contracts or reports, even to share holders. I am willing to bet you all of my shares of LMMI against all of your shares of IPM that if you could read all of the contracts and reports, BD is Scott Free. LMMI is doing terrible, not as bad as IPM. What is Sam Shaw doing now days? While you are at it, find out what happened to all of the IPM shares that Omega=Phoenix= Maxam=Runyon held. I suspect that they were all sold prior to last November. IMHO Tim

To: Paunch who wrote (33670)	8/13/1998 10:34:00 AM
From: ddl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Paunch, there is something about the IPM release of the .046 you should be aware of. This information was not released by IPM. There was a mix up in the sampling bags. There were "blanks" included in the sampling which did not turn out blank and the reason I was told is that the packers mixed the numbering system. That's a plausible excuse, but it is not certain. You may have .046 overall, but under these circumstances, not many "reputable" mining co's would have accepted the results. The full report was never released, so not much can be said till then. My faith was on what Sam Shaw said when interviewed by Struthers. I wonder where Sam is these days...hmmmmmmmmmmmm