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 : Steppe Gold (SPE:V) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tango who wrote (513)	1/20/1998 9:39:00 PM
From: Robert Dydo	Respond to of 1248

We shall see to that. At this point as you said everything is possible. Part of the quota has never belonged to WWS as you said it was promised to WWS which has never received the permit(your earlier post) Pressumption is good for the arguement's sake and if only pressumpions could build mines we would have people working in Busang Mine now. Discovery by government wasn't made than or later since the same country built the mine and social infrastructure around it. WWS did not build any business it failed to do so. On the end they closed everything down and left. Indochina has spent $5M in bonus, has paid for their stake $30M(two installments)and they still have to pay another $30M. This mine is owned by Indochina and they want to negotiate deferred payments. Similarity is only that mine had infrastructure and was operating under British partial ownership since 1992 before ING came. Everything is possible but as usual you have the answers already. I think we should wait and see. R

To: tango who wrote (513)	1/20/1998 10:08:00 PM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1248

tango, You're dancin' all over the thread here and you're certainly welcome, but Uranium is a touchy product and people that mine it in the U.S. have complained about the different sanctions involved. Uranium is A different product and the treatment of Uranium miners is certainly different than the treatment of miners of base or precious metals.

To: tango who wrote (513)	1/20/1998 11:10:00 PM
From: Robert Dydo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1248

Forgive me my ways but I wish you would point out to me in which part of last three years WWS have a news release about "Their share of US market"? If you could bring that to my attention I have a service which can track them about ten years. Well I did it, Global market without specification of US, this is a great difference. Why, when you have a law impossed in 1993 and you would like to sell any product which this law controls you expect to have a warrant. When you issue a news relase that you and local company will market the product globaly and you don't have licence to US, either you playing the wishing well song or sell product elsewhere or hope that permit is recieveable. When you don't have permit complying with the law from 1993 for export of product to US in 1997 and you marketing and contracting your product to US customer you are committing iilegal act. If you have comittment to produce 4.3M lb of the product by year 2000 and you produce 115K lb in four months of 1997 your management skills should be examined. The formula of proportionate share of US market comes from? opinion, calculation or logic? I have not seen any information to this regard and I looked hard. 1,500 people lost their job in reorganization by March 1997. By June nobody worked there anymore. The first question coming to mind if lack of such a permit was the reason to pull out why nobody took care of receiving one before any of the contracts were signed? Please find me specific part about US export in any news of taking over the TGK project published, I may reconsider value of your claims. R