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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VAUGHN who wrote (590)	1/17/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: Squidman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

I'm new to SUF and haven't seen any of the analysts reports although I've seen some of their price targets posted on this thread. Can anyone tell me what fraction of these valuations were being attributed to the disputed M1 property? I am also unclear as to importance of M1 in connection with the soon to be completed processes plant. I understood that development of M1 was a top priority but that the plant would be processing kimberlite from several deposits in the Klipspringer project. Does anyone know how much material from each deposit was intended to be processed? And if the M1 dispute turns out to be a long-term problem, can the plant capacity be filled by material from the other deposits? I hope that this dispute turns out to be a minor annoyance that can be quickly resolved. These claims always seem to come out of the woodwork just before a valuable project is developed. However, I also don't like to discount the ability of lawyers to change a trivial dispute without merit into very very long-term trivial dispute without merit. In such a case I'd like to know whether the claimants have the power to seriously disrupt the company's plans or whether SUF can simply wait it out while mining their other deposits. Finally, does anyone know if the conference call connected with the last press release was recorded and can be accessed? I tried to ask SUF but haven't received a response. Squidman

To: VAUGHN who wrote (590)	1/18/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: Walt	Respond to of 7235

You do dig out some interesting stuff Vaughn. Here is just a general question does anyone know the Time Frame involved in Court cases such as the current one. Are we talking weeks or months. I assume the courts have had to deal with similiar type claims in the past so there should be some precedents. Regards Walt