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 (1147)	5/18/1998 1:49:00 PM
From: INFOMAN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Your posting contains some disturbing information. Disturbing in the fact that you enthusiastically condone the improper acquisition of mineral rights from heirs who are entitled to such rights. Acquiring mineral rights without proper compensation is hardly the high moral road that SUF supposedly travels on. More frightening is the fact that you support the notion that any 'dead' person automatically forfeits any inheritance they wish to pass on to their heirs. Are you suggesting that all laws relating to inheritances should fall away? How much of your present estate is specified? If you have omitted a single item do you forfeit it to the first person who lays claim to it with their valuation as to what they presume the value to be? The importance of foreign investment cannot take precedent over the laws of the land. Is this your idea of Socialism/Fascism? This type of politics is not practised in SA. Are you implying that when De Beers starts mining the M1 that no taxes or revenue will be generated? Also that there will be no employment opportunities? Will the sale of $300 Million of diamonds not generate foreign income to SA? Any offer that De Beers might have made at the stage you mention would still have had to be accepted by a majority of the shareholders of NGS. By the way how would you have reacted if you had been one of the heirs? Would you have accepted the fait accompli that because you were unaware of the mineral rights, you had to accept the so-called independent value placed on them? SUF were well aware of the latent value of the M1. The amazing coincidence of your simultaneous posting with the Business Day letter from CMH Jennings continues to amaze me. Interesting that both you and Jennings don't mention the official DME press release in which they categorically state their impartiality in this matter. Why did he not criticize the Canadian newspapers for their incorrect headlines regarding the so-called backing of the DME for SUF? If a similar letter was sent to any Canadian newspaper I would appreciate a reference to it. Why did SUF choose to ignore the heirs in the Section 17? You seem to be more than competent to express your opinion on certain issues as long as they suit your needs yet on others you leave it to 'others' to make a decision for you. You keep on mentioning the R980,000 in rand terms to make it appear realistic. What can be purchased for C$300,000? This is a barely 1% of the value of the M1. Do you consider this a fair offer? Would you have accepted this insulting offer with each heir receiving about C$10,000 for their share in one of the richest diamond pipes? I doubt it. Hardly a winning lottery ticket. P.S. I hope that SUF treat their employees more fairly than their proposed 'offer' to the heirs.