Oh great mis-interpreter of information:
While I congratulate you on focusing on the one errant fact in the article, which you quote extensively, here is the actual quote, from SUF's annual report, Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements, page 30:
"....The consideration for the Company's interest in the project is:
An initial payment made to SAA of $2.7 million in cash and 500,000 commmon shares issued to SAA at a market value of $4.3 million and a further payment to SAA of US$7 million due originally by April 10 , 1998, which by mutual agreement on April 13, 1998, was revised to:
a) US$1.5 million in common shares to be settled by the issue of 173,770 common shares: and
b) a cash payment of US$6.5 million on or before April 20 , 1999 with up to 50% of the payment payable at the Company's option in common shares at the market value at the close of business on the date the Company elects to make the payment. In the event the Company does not acquire the mineral rights to the farm Marsfontein and fails to make the payment, the Company's interest in the CCJV shall be assigned to SAA and Comica. If the mineral rights to the farm Marsfontein are acquired, the payment must be made by April 20, 1999."
So, Camafuca is only at risk if SUF fails to "acquire the mineral rights to the farm Marsfontein" AND "fails to make the payment."
These are the facts.
So SUF maintains 51% of Camafuca as long as they provide 50% stock and US$3.25 million in cash by April 20, 1999, REGARDLESS of the farm Marsfontein.
With Klipspringer going thru 1-2,000 tons/day at a higher grade than expected, with the Sugarbird Blow larger than expected (vertical walls are steeper than expected) and the recovered diamonds larger than expected, this does not seem problematic, especially with the financing agreement.
Nice try.
Confluence
PS No response on a deal between SUF and NGS? Why not?
Hey, I hope your manager didn't get too upset at the possibility that De Beers/Anglo/FirstRand could be cut out. Nice dodge.
|
