Hello Infoman,
The contents of your posting refer to the letter by Mr. Cumine to the Mail and Guardian; the same person's signature is on the press release issued jointly by SUF, Randgold, De Beers and NGS. It was written in response to an independent article about the Marsfontein situation, and didn't take on a pro-De Beers stance. However, that was then, this is now. The mining permit has been issued, the JV is ready to start mining, now we wait for word that the ore is being moved. Its as simple as that.
As your posts only contain questions, rather than responses to any queries posed to you let me be very clear on the following:
SUF drilled M1, sampled M1, valued diamonds from M1 and submitted this data to the proper authorities. Other than the fiasco that developed over the Marsfontein mineral rights, SUF has been exactly correct about all other aspects of their business, for many years. I believe their initial results showed a grade of over 300 cpht, but SUF has decided for the mining plan to use a figure of 225 cpht as a conservative estimate. As with all exploration leading to mining, the actual grade will likely be different than the grade inferred by drilling. Time will tell; time is now on SUF's side.
I am concerned that the relationship between NGS and De Beers may be deteriorating. This must concern all JV partners. Fortunately, SUF need only deal with Randgold and De Beers, as NGS and the other party with interest are completely the responsibility of De Beers. There is no need for De Beers to audit SUF's results. Please indicate when/where De Beers has indicated this need.
Although you and Gull have chosen not to reveal the purpose of your recent concern, his words speak loudly for both of you: He's only in it for the money. Thus, I'm left to conclude that NGS has not been completely compensated by De Beers. Please demonstrate that I'm incorrect.
Surely the sharp negotiators for NGS can explain how mining of M1 can commence without the complete satisfaction of the "heirs". And while I'm interested in seeing how De Beers treats its NGS partners, as a shareholder of SUF I am completely unconcerned by any of your comments, problems and innuendo. SUF people told a packed annual meeting, and has since told analysts and investors of their expectations.
You have called into question the credibility of SUF. I am completely confident in SUF's credibility. Most shareholders of SUF who have been through the recent turmoil have made their decision to hold the stock for the expected future share price gains. Your attempts to undermine SUF need to be answered, but are irrelevant to the future, as I see it. Time will decide who is correct.
Regards,
Confluence
PS. Why not call Mr. Cumine at De Beers for his comments? As Information Officer, he surely will comment to some extent. Have either of you ever conversed with SUF people in either Canada or RSA? Give it a try, they are most gracious, and even get on well with the De Beers folks now! |
