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: GULL who wrote (1001)	4/25/1998 1:41:00 PM
From: DavidA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Gull, if you are to act as a public spokesperson for NGS have the courage to admit it. I am an existing shareholder which dates back many years and I'm interested in recieving factual information. Having read your postings and that of INFOMAN, your story continues to be of personal opinion, refernces to section (17 / 24) of the minerals act is also misrepresented and clarified within articles of the Financial Post. "Pretoria has the tools. Section 17 of the 1991 Minerals act gives Maduna power to license minerals if an heir to mineral rights has not obtained cession thereof and a period of not less than two years has expired from the date on which he became so entitled". Further stated "Maduna writes to the Financial Post that since the Marsfontein heirs died 30 years ago without heirs registring the mineral rights he can invoke section 17", which appears imminent. It's appears that NGS and potentialy yourself are some what nervous with a court case soon to proceed, look at all the options and don't panic. By the way De Beers is not interested in mining a small property, with an estimated life span of less than 2 years, there intentions are most obvious, force SUF into a position in which they can acquire exclusive rights to marketing there Diamonds. The case of section 24 falls to the benefit of SUF who can mind the property more cost effective and fast. As noted before road access to and water supply are not available to that of another party. The M1 in effect may then sit for many years to follow, my opinion only. By the way I'm waiting for INFOMAN's next News Flash, this is starting to build into an interesting legal case...