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: Factfinder who wrote (876)	4/18/1998 6:20:00 PM
From: Goalie	Respond to of 7235

Hello Factfinder: Good comment... If I might add, it also flies in the face of SA's new draft minerals policy and its objectives. I agree with you that the govt is extremely sensitive to this since 2/3 of their export revenue is derived from minerals! They'll make sure everything is totally above board on this one! Goalie.

To: Factfinder who wrote (876)	4/18/1998 6:33:00 PM
From: Goalie	Respond to of 7235

Hello Factfinder: I also liked your comments on Dec 17/97 -- answer #532 to Peter B.

To: Factfinder who wrote (876)	4/19/1998 3:18:00 PM
From: GULL	Respond to of 7235

"Justice will prevail if the facts are as presented by SUF" What are the facts? My lone voice of dissent has been directed at the way RG allegedly handled this whole affair since the beginning. 1.The SA law states that the holders of the mineral rights must be contacted or at least an effort should be made to track them down. This was not done as RG decided that as the heirs had not been left the mineral rights according to the wills of the original owners. SA law covers this eventuality but RG decided that as the heirs had not re-registered the mineral rights within two years,they would be forfeit to the state. The questions to ask: 1.How could they re-register the rights if they did not know about them? 2.If all these so-called protocols were missing then how come RG did not do the DD at the time as they opened the wills to ascertain who the heirs were or who the new owners were? 3.Why weren't the heirs contacted at the time to cover all the options? Surely an option that had to be considered as the mineral rights were still registered in the original owners name? I doubt if these so-called missing protocols mean that the mineral rights were sold as then the new owners would have re-registered them. 3.I don't know why everyone is so fired up about the section 17 and section 24?? Section 17 is about the heirs losing the rights as they had not re-registered them but surely this falls away as the apparently did'nt know about them. Section 24 is about expropriation in the publics interest but I doubt if De Beers is involved in a jv wether this would hold any water. 4.I doubt wether a company of De Beers reputation would state in a press release that there had been a bidding process if there had'nt been one. In CJ's response and I quote "-we were asked to give a figure-we asked their negotiator to come and see me.She came in-she told me the previous day that she had a mandate -when she walked in she said that she had no mandate -she said that we should make a bid and she would take it away.We said that it was unacceptable -she went right out and made a deal with De Beers." Doesn't mean that SUF were offered an opportunity before DB and that a bidding process was involved? 5.The registration of the mineral rights to NGS Minerals was not a mickey mouse process at some deeds registery office. I am sure that all the correct procedures were followed otherwise we would have seen it being de-registered after the time that has elapsed since the 13th March. I am sure that if the lawyer involved in all of the heirs legal affairs got off his butt and did all the correct DD it is quite in order to register it in 6 days.Why all the mystery and cloak and dagger responses? The same legal framework is accessible to all the parties concerned,why don't we forget about 'woman' lawyers and other political remarks and concentrate on the facts at hand? 6.I note further on in CJ's conference in reply to a question:"THE SA GOVT ISSUED AN EXPLORATION PERMIT TO RG-IS IT COMMON PRACTISE TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR LAND FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS AND WHAT WOULD THEIR LIABILITY BE IN THIS CASE?" "They issued it to Randgold....We were told that we should just proceed with the prospecting and we would be granted the rights because we could not find these people.Is the government liable?We have a jv agreement -we have taken advice and Rangold is liable" Very interesting for two reasons,firstly no-one has ever doubted that RG knew who the heirs were but made no attempt to contact them as when they checked the wills involved they did not deem it necessary?? The liability here is according to CJ very definitely RG.