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: nempela who wrote (1113)	5/15/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) of 7235

Marsfontein the saga continues.... Are you implying that the R2800 was too much or too little? What figure would you have suggested that they use? Should they have paid duties on your figure in excess of 50 Million rands or should they have paid the amount that the mineral rights were worth thirty years ago when they should have been included in the estates? What would you have done? While we are talking statistics-how did SUF come up with the measly R980,000 what percentage is that of the R1,5 Billion ,not a typo:that the M1 is worth? It is not good enough to say that that was the going rate in the area as SUF knew what they were sitting on. Is a Lotto 6/49 winning ticket worth the same as a normal ticket?? I have posted the Section 24 on this thread so lets move on to Section 17 to see the moral high road. 17 Power of Minister if consent to prospect or to mine cannot be acquired (1) If the right to any mineral is fully or partly severed from the ownership of land and is fully registered in the name of one holder or in the names of more than one holder in undivided shares, and any person intending to prospect or to mine for such mineral on such land satisfies the Minister that the right so to prospect or to mine cannot be readily acquired by reason of the fact that- (a) such holder or holders cannot be readily traced; or (b) any person entitled to such right to a mineral or undivided share therein by virtue of intestate succession or any testamentary disposition has not obtained cession thereof and a period of not less than two years has expired from the date on which he became so entitled. Why do you think that section (b) was chosen by SUF? Note that it is not an and/or choice As you have done such in-depth DD you will have a copy of the heirs names. On the list you will also note that one of these names is absolutely identical to one of the original owners even to having the same three initials,and is also listed in the local telephone directory. This is of course a matter of public record case no:723/98. The 10th applicant in case you want to save time. So one phone call could have sorted out choice (a) Could it be that management decided on choice (b) as they had checked the estate and knew that the heirs knew nothing about the existence of Marsfontein? This is also a matter of public record that Marsfontein is not included in the relevant estates. Why with so much at stake was option (b) decided on? Who knows what the heirs would have accepted. Can one blame them that they now have a winning Lotto ticket? What would you have done under the circumstances? P.S INFOMAN does not work for any of the parties concerned. This will also be public knowledge soon. Does this mean that the rest of your DD is also suspect??

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next