Hello Confluence,
Was not the same argument put forward by SUF, that they had checked the ownership of the M1 mineral rights, that the DME was in fact supporting them, that they would win the section 24 battle etc? This was purely on the assumption that what ever action ' preceding ' these events were properly carried out., which history now shows was not the case. I sincerely hope that SUF is not attempting to force De Beers hand in this joint venture. SUF's track record in matters of administration is not exemplary, and I would be more cautious when acting on the contents of their press release. I would not rely purely on assumptions in matters of such importance. SUF have been accused of not communicating very well with their shareholders and perhaps its time that they do.
If De Beers is currently busy with their technical due diligence studies, would you then agree that SUF is guilty of non disclosure of material facts, relevant to shareholders and any other parties associated in this joint venture. I am surprised that you would deem any due diligence studies conducted by De Beers as being irrelevant, if indeed this is to be the case. If De Beers have agreed to SUF's prospecting results, then I see no reason why they do not just publish it. What harm could follow such a simple disclosure? SUF are after all the main protagonist in this operation, and the shareholders would expect them, and not De Beers to come clean on this matter.
Perhaps a press release will be forthcoming prior to the commencement of the mining operations.
Regards
|
