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: Peter Bourgeois who wrote (868)	4/18/1998 12:32:00 PM
From: Goalie	Respond to of 7235

Hello Peter: I am pretty sure that there were shorties on the playing field. As for the dispute, I want to repeat a couple of points covered earlier on this thread. There has been no material change recently because (a) the High Court of SA has not yet ruled on the validity of the heirs' claim; and (b) the govt can, at any time, in the public interest, intervene under Section 24 of the Minerals Act to expropriate the rights and grant the rights to SUF/RG. Should the courts rule against the alleged heirs, the De Beeres deal is off. Even the De Beeres' press release refers to several provisos, such as the granting of proper authorisation etc. Also, they say they plan to wait until mid-May (until after the court hearings) to assume the rights, do DD, etc. This means De Beeres is not interested in getting involved in the current legal and political issues, and it knows that if the alleged heirs lose their claim the so-called "purchase" of the rights is nul and void. Why? Because in that case the rights were not the alleged heirs to sell. BTW, I believe there was no legal tendering process as claimed by De Beeres Press Release... When NGS and SUF/RG finally agreed on a price, the NGS lawyer walked out saying she had no mandate to accept the offer. Subsequently NGS announced that it had signed a prospecting contract with De Beeres. It was, in my view, a clear case of green-envelope dealing, not legal price bidding as we know it in Canada. It is also interesting to note that SA banks still believe in the stability of SUF's venture by stating publicly that if SUF needs bridge financing, the wallet is open. Do the SA banks know something? I think they do - they know very well the SA laws regarding registration of mineral rights. As for De Beeres, they are in this, I think, to play hard ball with SUF on marketing its diamonds thru CSO, while sitting back and waiting for the outcome. They have nothing to lose. They have paid nothing to the alleged heirs, so far(and not likely that they will until they get the go-ahead to register the rights perhaps by about May 23; or, until they receive proper authorization, do DD, re-drill and re-evaluate) and if the claim of the alleged heirs for the mineral rights is thrown out of court, De Beeres lost nothing. It still has a jv with SUF on other exploration projects. And, those are my thoughts on this bright and sunny day! Regards. Goalie.

To: Peter Bourgeois who wrote (868)	4/18/1998 1:50:00 PM
From: GULL	Respond to of 7235

I don't think that RG or Suf own the land.

To: Peter Bourgeois who wrote (868)	4/18/1998 2:10:00 PM
From: Joe Boster	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Hi all; This is now the second "Diamond Dog" that is biting me in the butt. (KRT is a story for another day) I'm not an expert on SA mining law, but I did some homework this past week - I should have done this before I invested, instead I listened to all those damn analysts! The way I understand it, a mining company gets the right to explore a property from the surface owners of the property. Once they reach a stage where mining seems feasible, they acquire the Mineral Rights from the rightful owner. This is done by checking the Register of Deeds, kept by the SA Government. The Mineral Rights can either be in the name of the State or in the names of individuals. If it is in the name of the State, you negotiate a price and pay it over to the State. However if it is in the name or names of individuals, it becomes more complex. Most of the mineral rights date back to the turn of the century and are now in the hands of the second and third generations. To protect the original owners, and now their heirs, from loosing the rights to the State, a system has been put in place to try and locate the rightful owners. If the original owner can not be tracked down, the State acts as their agent. The mining company negotiates a price with the State, and pays that to the State as a deposit. You then place an advertisement in the local news papers and the Government Gazette for 90 days trying to locate the rightful owners. If the owners show up, you negotiate a deal with them and the State pays back your deposit. However, if within 90 days nobody comes forward, the State keeps your money and you get the Mineral Rights. If after the 90 days the rightful owner comes forward, the State pays over the deposit to them and they have no recourse against the mining company that now has the Mineral Rights. This information was obtained from extracts of the South African Minerals Act No. 50 of 1991, and previous Acts, as published in the 10-K of any mining company conducting mining in South Africa. Did SUF know about this procedure that has to be followed? Did they know that the original owners might come forward before they released 15 press releases and 5 analysts reports in the last 6 moths of 1997? Did CJ and the analysts mislead the investors by turning a blind eye to South African law? Elizabeth Kirkwood of TNK says ".she has stayed away from SA because of frequent disputes over title to resources." It seems to me that if you follow the SA laws, it is relatively simple. She now prefers to deal with De Beers that practically wrote the SA Mining Law! I also follow Global Diamond Resources - GDRS, that announced this week that they got the Mineral Lease to one of their properties approved. (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=4100719) This company is run by South Africans with lots of experience in the diamond industry. Maybe the Canadians should stay to Canada - if they can handle De Beer's growing interest in Canada!! I hope someone can get me some answers. Joe.