Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : TLM.TSE Talisman Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tomas who wrote (629)	12/2/1999 7:42:00 PM
From: Aggie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1713

Tomas, Hah! (slurp, crunch) Good one! Aggie

To: Tomas who wrote (629)	12/4/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: Edward M. Zettlemoyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1713

Tomas and all, News Article by NYT on December 04, 1999 at 17:24:57: Food for Sudan's Rebels Is Not the Answer - Letter THE NEW YORK TIMES December 4, 1999 Letters To the Editor: As former ambassadors to Sudan, we earnestly hope President Clinton will not use the new Congressional authority to provide food assistance to the Sudan People's Liberation Army (front page, Nov. 29). It would be a mistake to abandon the American policy of not using food as a weapon of war. Using the new authority would undercut Washington's ability to be an honest broker in the effort to end Sudan's civil war. The administration must remember that the rebels, as well as the Khartoum government, have committed egregious human rights violations. Khartoum could well retaliate against the international assistance program in Sudan if food aid were given to the rebels. We can understand the frustration arising from the United States' failure to induce Khartoum to change its ways. But giving food aid to the rebels is not the answer. A more productive course would be to work for a stronger, more sustained effort to end the war. C. WILLIAM KONTOS DONALD PETTERSON Washington, Dec. 2, 1999 sudan.net eom Ed

To: Tomas who wrote (629)	12/8/1999 6:33:00 PM
From: Mantis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1713

Gum Arabic vs. Oil; 10 vs. 450 million To better understand the rationale behind "why us, why Talisman?" and "why not gum arabic?" all we have to do is look at the numbers. Total $ value of Gum Arabic exports is around $10 million USD. Total $ value to the GOS from 50,000 bopd they are receiving from GNPOC is $450 million annually. So why not pick on the poor downstream oil operators - like Shell? Perhaps it's because they're not giving $450 million worth of oil to the GOS annually. And again, look carefully at the situation, and you'll see that CNPC and Goldman Sachs are also being "picked on". (Goldman is the lead manager of CNPC's desired $5-$10 billion IPO on the NYSE). FYI - Heard a rumour that there may be a news story on CNPC's desired IPO on CNBC tonight.