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 : Canadian Diamond Play Cafi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Vet who wrote (2634)	3/13/2005 11:27:31 AM
From: WillP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16206

WillP, my speculation was based entirely on the premise that DeBeers would hand over the marketing rights of that 36% in return for immediate payment and Aber financing their share of the mine in advance rather than the current arrangement with MPV. OK. I agree with you that Aber wouldn't be interested otherwise. I don't think there would be many interested without the marketing rights. So, the question becomes, why would De Beers therefore be willing to give up the marketing rights to 36% of the Gahcho Kue diamonds, in exchange for an immediate payment of the $220-million construction costs. Those costs are covered by a pretty reasonable interest rate, compounded annually, and I'm sure the diamond giant can get the cash from a lender on a cheaper basis. So, am I correct in saying that this "what-if" depends on a reasonable reason for De Beers to fork over the marketing rights? If so, what reasons can you guys come up with? It's an interesting discussion. Regards, WillP