Mr. Infoman,
Boy, do you guys get up early on all long weekends?
I:Your posting to Confluence re-examined the process as to how the mineral rights were legally registered in the realisation company (NGS), which is owned by the heirs.
C:The posting re-iterated jargon and stuff
I:Some of the participants on this thread have attempted to paint a picture, that South Africa is a somewhat backward country, a country incapable of handling their own administrative duties. This attitude is quite common and prevalent in many foreign companies, an example being SUF.
C:Not at all. Records from many years ago are spotty in many countries. No painting pictures.
I:Counties like South Africa (and others) inherited from the British, a bureaucracy, which required, for their own self importance and livelihood, an administrative system which had or, has few rivals.
C:Then why are the Marsfontein mineral rights not specifically recorded in four different person's estates? Either records were poor or the rights were sold/traded.
I:Confluence has questioned the reliability of the Certificates of Mineral Rights as he questions the competency of the administrators a generation ago. They were in fact, more particular in their duties as they had no computers to assist and were meticulous with their records.
C:I questioned no one/thing in particular. However, I do question the application of details, the apparent "facts" which are given up by some contributors from time to time, etc. While you are well written, I simply question motives; Why not comment on the meetings of the past few days? And if the "heirs" have been fully compensated by De Beers, then aren't you done? You're comments suggest otherwise. Why?
I:Does Confluence suggest that all our forefathers were just plain stupid, or at the very least guilty of gross incompetence?
C:This is an inflammatory comment meant to divert attention
I:If Confluence would once more read your posting, it would show quite clearly that the procedure taken by the heirs, to register their mineral rights, was not a simple course to follow. Once again, a number of different and totally separate government departments were involved. Each would of course, demand that all relevant documentation be up to standard before processing their part, and then,...... off to the next department.
C:It would clearly represent your opinion; nothing else. Facts are things stated publicly by people responsible for the comments. Shame on you for thinking your comments on this thread by taken as fact by anyone. Stand up and be counted. Put quotes around press releases and include your name.
I:This word attribution keeps on surfacing on this thread, especially by a participant who believes their argument is weak. Whatever has been posted on this thread, is either his/her own opinion, or attributed to a particular document, which the participant is referring to. You could of course go further and ask where the source material on the source is, and so on.....
Endless splitting of hairs.( pardon the pun.)
C:See above. I believe that no participants comment on their own weak arguments. That is an inane comment meant to diflect attention from the issue.
I:The case on the M1 is to be heard soon, and we can then take it for granted that the judgement will to some extent, have enough attribution to satisfy some of the participants, or would they query the Judge's attribution, taking into account the information presented to him by the parties involved.
C:While I have privately expressed concern about the RSA judiciary, I'm told that corruption in their ranks is very unlikely, and that it would be surprising if they didn't cling strongly to precedent; and resolve the interdict in favour of the Minister. Which begs the question: Why are the "heirs" and De Beers still talking/negotiating with SUF. Surely De Beers no longer has a use for SUF.
I:Nempele in his posting quotes ' it is standard procedure to quickly and without fanfare acquire to the mineral rights'. Does this mean by stealth, as I have previously asked?
C: No. It means that mining companies would only attempt to gather mineral rights if they believed these rights were profitable. Exploration companies like SUF acquire rights in many countries (like Angola) quietly in order to explore without other companies right beside them. Because exploration is fraught with hopes that rarely see fruition, these rights have a nominal value until a find. Witness Marsfontein: The surrounding farms realized about a quarter of the worth of Marsfontein because there are lesser finds than M1. The point, however, is that the value ascribed to Marfontein by the DME is determined not by a deposit, but rather by the a priori likelihood of a find. This is why most land/rights holders in Canada receive an NRS or an equity postion, because the ability to exploit their deposit comes about only after someone has found it. Which, in the case of Marsfontein, is why the DME says the rights are worth 980,000 Rand (BEFORE a find). I mean, come on, De Beers previously owned the exploratory rights and couldn't find any diamonds ; did they compensate the "heirs" back in the 1980s? Why not? Selective application of facts/motivations? Why only get concerned about Marsfontein after a big find? |
