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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis DeNoble who wrote (7585)	9/25/1998 4:04:00 PM
From: Randall E. Brubaker	Respond to of 14226

Dennis: Not great news, but better than no news, imo. Can you tell us how many shipments are affected by this? Randall

To: Dennis DeNoble who wrote (7585)	9/25/1998 7:12:00 PM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

Dennis, the things you guys are saying ring hollow. I was under the impression that GPGI had assay control of the resin sent to Sabin. You are now telling us that's not the case? So why the hell are you telling people you are in production when GPGI is still clawing itself out of R&D? Seems the production BS got the operation stopped for lack of permits. You want your cake and eat it too, you now have neither. Same old, same old. The stock price doesn't reflect dark forces, just incompetent hype expectation not realized IMO.

To: Dennis DeNoble who wrote (7585)	9/25/1998 9:12:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

Dennis, can you help us out here and square the following statements: 9/8 <<Sabin Metals was able to actually extract slightly more in value than our own in-house assay showed was in the shipment...... Assays of shipments 3 through 6 show profound increases in the quantities of metal present in the resin.>> 9/25 <<We are in receipt of the Sabin Metals settlement for shipments #3 & #4. While we did not expect spectacular numbers from these shipments the actual results were less than anticipated.>> The first statement refers to shipments #s 1 and 2. Why did the later shipments fall short of expectations when the first two exceeded them? Did expectations swell after #s 1 and 2? And can you explain in more how the non-production digestion tanks failed later but not earlier? TIA...SW