SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) Message Board

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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: russet who wrote (6215)	9/5/2000 9:05:12 AM
From: gemsearcher	Read Replies (2) of 7235

Hi Russett. Your squished-induced wariness is understandable. I seem to recall that RTZ has the right to back-in for something like a 30% interest at MacKay should a significant discovery be made upon payment to SUF of a multiple of exploration $$ spent to date and agreeing to carry the project through to final feasibility. Alternatively , if RTZ does not exercise its rights in such circumstances , there are a couple of "good neighbours" with whom a deal could be logically struck (ggg). That said , I have continued to hold/buy SUF over the last 18 months not for its diamond assets/prospects , but on the strength of Messina. The big 3 auto manufacturers have conceded many times that there is no economic substitute for PGM's for the foreseeable future in terms of emission control compliance , and I think we will begin to see increasing #'s of forward sale contracts with those end users for PGM product. IOW , in an era of uncertain supply (who the #*&^ knows what Norilsk is going to do tomorrow , much less than in a year or two) and known demand , I think the end users will hedge their exposure. This can only serve to help the economics of the small-cap producers like SUF. Regards.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next