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: Joe Boster who wrote (872)	4/18/1998 4:44:00 PM
From: Goalie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Joe: As mentioned in previous posts, Randgold lawyers handle the case; and they did all of what you say needed to be done -- to the letter of the law. RG is in a jv with SUF for 35% and its incumbent on RG turning the property and rights over to SUF. RG lawyers know SA mining law. Further, all available closure documents were obtained by RG/SUF which showed that the mineral rights were not re-registered within the required two years by alleged heirs. The Act provides that if no heirs are found the rights revert to the govt, which then (a) requires the requesting party to deposit funds (in this case 1M Rand) and then issues a permit. The funds are held in case some heirs may show up later to make a claim. All DD according to SA law was carried out to the letter by RG lawyers. Just as the Minister was issuing the permit, an injunction was requested by the alleged heirs stopping the Minister from issuing same. BTW, the alleged heirs still have to prove their rightful claim before the High Court... What is strange about the case is that after the original DD was done, and the govt was satisfied that the rights were not registered and therefore assumed the mineral rights, and issued an exploration permit to RG/SUF, stories were in the local papers, and people knew the work was being done. Yet none of the alleged heirs came forward. Then, when the pipe was confirmed the govt again reviewed the DD and as the rightful owner of the mineral rights the govt issued the mining permit. It was at that point that the alleged heirs (or their lawyer who is also supposed to be an heir) suddenly came forward. Where were they, or him, while this scene was playing out at the exploration stage? I guess, waiting for a find and then to challenge. The alleged-heir-lawyer is an expert in SA law. But he still has to prove to the courts that they are the rightful owners... Even if he registered a new company, NGS, in such speedy fashion thru some Deed registry office (which surprised even the govt??!!), he ain't got nothin' until the courts, or the minister, under sect 24, says so. Incidentally, I am glad SUF is in SA -- the Klipspringer find is one of the largest fissure finds in the world and could have a life of up to 50 years! Then there are SUF projects in Angola -- Camafuca and the alluvials... Why should they stay only in Canada? They play by the rules of SA! When you add up their SA assets, SUF can be the second largest diamond producer in SA after DeB! Maybe that's why De Beeres is playing hard ball... Why do you say you got bitten? This ain't over yet. What price did you pay? Why don't look north to NWT and wait till SUF hits a pipe there and then see what happens to the stock... Oh, don't moan about it; if you don't like the stock sell it... and see yah later... As for Ms Kirkwood, she's entitled to her opinions! Regards. Goalie.

To: Joe Boster who wrote (872)	4/21/1998 1:31:00 PM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Just for interest, herewith some DD on Section 24 "MINERALS ACT (ACT 50/1991) 24. Power of Minister to expropriate surface or mineral rights. - (1) If the Minister at any time deems it necessary in the public interest to expropriate any right (including ownership) or share therein - (a) in respect of land, the surface or any portion under the surface of land: or (b) to a mineral in respect of land, he may expropriate any such right or share therein: Provided that the person at whose request such right or share therein is expropriated, if any, shall compensate the person whose right thereto or share therein has been expropriated for such right or share therein to an amount mutually agreed upon or, if no agreement can be reached, to an amount determined by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1965 (Act No. 42 of 1965), or by any competent court if the last-mentioned person prefers the last-mentioned procedure: Provided further that in determining the last-mentioned amount, section 12 of the Expropriation Act, 1975 (Act No. 63 of 1975), shall mutatis mutandis apply as if an expropriation of property or the taking of a right has taken place in terms of the last-mentioned Act. (2) The right to any land or mineral or any share therein expropriated under subsection (1), shall vest in the person at whose request it has been expropriated."