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: nempela who wrote (1113)	5/14/1998 10:02:00 AM
From: Goalie	Respond to of 7235

Hello nempela: EXCELLENT post! Thank you!

To: nempela who wrote (1113)	5/14/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Blue	Respond to of 7235

Nempela, this was a beautiful post. The importance of maintaining the integrity of the rule of law and especially the proper treatment of mining companies with legitimate operations will be very important to the future of South Africa. Investor confidence cannot be shaken by a return to the 'extra-legal' fantasy world of these so-called heirs. Most South African officials cannot comment, but a couple have, and have pointed out that the future of the mining industry depends on them getting this case right. Legal title cannot be stripped from SUF/Randgold on such flimsy grounds, and it will not be. Then again this might have been de Beers' way of saying "let's talk". And they surely will talk, but SUF has production of a very high grade and should not sell out cheap. A thank you to Chris Jennings. You continue to show the highest of integrity. We've been with you all the way and we still are.

To: nempela who wrote (1113)	5/14/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: INFOMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Nempela, Is this the sum of SUf's argument to be presented shortly to the courts? I hope not. The attorneys acting on behalf of SUF would be doing them a great disservice. Most of the information presented by yourself has already been posted on this thread and has also been published in the local and international press. I see nothing of value which might add to what is already common knowledge. You have only added your opinion which is what this thread is all about. The M1 issue is to be heard shortly in the High Court of SA. There will no doubt be further information that will come to light which may make some people feel uncomfortable. This is one of the perils which SUf will have to unfortunately face, no matter how difficult this might be. SUF, already punch drunk, must await the final bell. De Beers, the largest and most experienced in the diamond business has decided to enter into some form of agreement with NGS, obviously on the basis that their case carries far more weight than what SUF might have to offer. No one bets on a loser, especially De Beers. To fight someone in their own backyard, especially if they are stronger and more adept, is throwing caution to the wind. Your opinion is spirited, but let us await the court's decision, and all will then be properly informed. PS. How can you, and others, get so confused as to the gender of INFOMAN when it is so self explanatory. Regards

To: nempela who wrote (1113)	5/14/1998 4:46:00 PM
From: VAUGHN	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Nempela A welcome to the thread to you and BozkurtD and a thank you also to Goalie, Confluence and Valuepro. I hope I have not forgotten anyone. Unfortunatly, the thread has recently degenerated from what had been a very informative and friendly place to exchange information and talk to adults with different perspectives. I think your post and those of a few of the others very much captures the flavour and quality of what we all appreciate and would like to return to. I repeat my invitation to everyone in the hope that we can all avoid these personal tit for tat exchanges that have been so prevalent recently, and get back to being a forum of facts, questions, friendly assistance and opinions. I am sure we will all enjoy reading posts of that nature. Again congratulations on a very informative piece, it was a terrific help. P.S. You indicated that much of what you typed was readily available, would that be on the net? Regards

To: nempela who wrote (1113)	5/15/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Marsfontein the saga continues.... Are you implying that the R2800 was too much or too little? What figure would you have suggested that they use? Should they have paid duties on your figure in excess of 50 Million rands or should they have paid the amount that the mineral rights were worth thirty years ago when they should have been included in the estates? What would you have done? While we are talking statistics-how did SUF come up with the measly R980,000 what percentage is that of the R1,5 Billion ,not a typo:that the M1 is worth? It is not good enough to say that that was the going rate in the area as SUF knew what they were sitting on. Is a Lotto 6/49 winning ticket worth the same as a normal ticket?? I have posted the Section 24 on this thread so lets move on to Section 17 to see the moral high road. 17 Power of Minister if consent to prospect or to mine cannot be acquired (1) If the right to any mineral is fully or partly severed from the ownership of land and is fully registered in the name of one holder or in the names of more than one holder in undivided shares, and any person intending to prospect or to mine for such mineral on such land satisfies the Minister that the right so to prospect or to mine cannot be readily acquired by reason of the fact that- (a) such holder or holders cannot be readily traced; or (b) any person entitled to such right to a mineral or undivided share therein by virtue of intestate succession or any testamentary disposition 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. Why do you think that section (b) was chosen by SUF? Note that it is not an and/or choice As you have done such in-depth DD you will have a copy of the heirs names. On the list you will also note that one of these names is absolutely identical to one of the original owners even to having the same three initials,and is also listed in the local telephone directory. This is of course a matter of public record case no:723/98. The 10th applicant in case you want to save time. So one phone call could have sorted out choice (a) Could it be that management decided on choice (b) as they had checked the estate and knew that the heirs knew nothing about the existence of Marsfontein? This is also a matter of public record that Marsfontein is not included in the relevant estates. Why with so much at stake was option (b) decided on? Who knows what the heirs would have accepted. Can one blame them that they now have a winning Lotto ticket? What would you have done under the circumstances? P.S INFOMAN does not work for any of the parties concerned. This will also be public knowledge soon. Does this mean that the rest of your DD is also suspect??