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: Goalie who wrote (953)	4/23/1998 8:45:00 AM
From: Jadrew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Gull read the FP today: Goalie, read the following link. Look's like our resident legal expert isn't as bright as he/she/it thinks. canoe.ca

To: Goalie who wrote (953)	4/23/1998 9:35:00 AM
From: Goalie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

TO ALL: Financial Post page 3: Thursday, April 23, 1998 Pretoria vows to take SouthernEra's side in court By PETER KUITENBROUWER The Financial Post The South African government says it will fight in court to ensure Toronto-based SouthernEra Resources Ltd. and its joint venture partner win disputed mineral rights under a cattle ranch in the Transvaal. The fight centres on what SouthernEra has called a world-class cache of "high-grade and excellent quality diamonds." In a letter to The Financial Post, South African Minerals & Energy Minister Penuell Maduna writes that Section 17 of the country's 1991 Minerals Act gives him the power to grant the mining rights to the Canadian-led group. "My department is of the opinion that Section 17 is applicable in the relevant case and instruction has been given to the state attorney, Pretoria, to enter a notice of intention to defend the matter," Maduna writes. With the decision, he is pitting his government against 29 Afrikaner heirs, who succeeded last month in registering mineral rights to the disputed Marsfontein farm. The government is also taking on De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd., which said last week it bought the mineral rights from the heirs. The case is shaping into a textbook showdown between whites, who traditionally have privately held most of South Africa's mineral rights, and the country's black-led government. Yesterday Martin Nicol, economic consul in South Africa's Toronto consulate, confirmed Maduna's decision is part of a larger government policy. "The South African government is seeking to disturb a system that's been in place for many years," he said. "We want to open up the system to smaller companies and new entrants." Nicol said big private mining houses such as De Beers and Anglo American Corp. of South Africa are "very hostile on moving toward a state-owned system." In December, Maduna released a green paper on reforming the country's mineral rights policy,which notes "at present almost all privately owned mineral rights are in white hands." In fighting the heirs, Maduna is questioning a system in which mineral rights are passed down in perpetuity. "In the Marsfontein case the mineral rights are currently held in undivided shares by certain four persons who have already died some 30 years ago without any heirs/beneficiaries who became entitled thereto taking cession thereof," he wrote. He goes on to suggest, in this case, the heirs did not register the mineral rights within the time required by law. De Beers said last week the heirs, through their holding company, NGS Minerals Ltd., are "the registered owners of the mineral rights relating to certain portions of the farm Marsfontein 91 KS." SouthernEra vice-president Lee Barker said he "appreciates that Maduna has clarified the situation because it reinforces what we've been saying all along." ________________________________

To: Goalie who wrote (953)	4/23/1998 3:17:00 PM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

NEWS FLASH!!! Old rehash of Section 17 that has been pending for months!! Read all about this months old news on this thread! The same Minister,the same SUF,the same Section,the same heirs,the same M1 etc...

To: Goalie who wrote (953)	4/23/1998 4:01:00 PM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Goalie Seriously now how would you respond to the following:I quote you: 'A friend who is not a member of SI but reads the threads,has this message to pass onto you and INFOMAN ... "your statements are unfounded allegations without attribution,and as such,they are rubbish.If it isn't on record,it doesn't exist.The big difference between GULL/INFOMAN and SUF is that SUF responded with attribution.If there is no attribution,its fiction..." Was this "friend" another one of your fairy tale characters or maybe Bigfoot (Bigmouth?) Read it carefully and apply it yourself and then respond with just one attribution.