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 (1188)	5/22/1998 12:59:00 AM
From: Confluence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Hey folks, What a confusing press release; here's what I know: SUF backed out of their interdict; so did the "heirs" back off from their position. Why would both sides drop their actions? Some agreement? Aside: Why are Infoman and Gull quiet since the first news? Did SUF walk away from a fight with De Beers? I was worried until I talked to SUF people in RSA: they said that the "heirs" were "nonplussed", that negotiations were ongoing and several other things: 1) SUF believes that their actions before the courts will allow the Minister of Minerals and Energy to exercise the good and political will of RSA; this may happen in the next short while? 2) That discussions are ongoing for a negotiated settlement; however SUF "will not give away the farm" (no bad pun intended) 3) The press release contained two parargraphs: 1st Paragraph : SUF drops its interdict. "Heirs" also withdraw their application to prevent SUF from acquiring the mineral rights to Marsfontein. 2nd Paragraph: No facts. Simply SUF wanted it to be known that that the previous action would allow for the Minister to apply section 24 -- the expropriation part of the Minerals act. Why did SUF walk away from court? I think that they decided to fight in another arena. Its one thing to fight and lose; that is upsetting; but a part of life. To drop their position in court was either stupid or bears further development. Why did they bring their shareholders to the brink, and then pause? I might be an idiot (a poorer one), but it seems like something else is going to happen. A question is why did the "heirs" get very upset after the court hearing? Why are the SUF people excited/happy? Now that SUF has removed legal impediments, is De Beers compelled to compensate NGS? Why are the "heirs" upset? What are the politicians in RSA to do? This has evolved into a highly political situation where a non-RSA firm has complied with the wishes of the DME and will get screwed ---- unless section 24 is exercised by the Minister. Think of how foreign exploration companies will pour money into RSA if a favourable decision is not reached quickly. NOT!!!! To my RSA friends Gull and Infoman: Good for you; I hope you get lots of dough from De Beers (they're known for their generosity). I suspect, however, that your family of "heirs" has set back the cause of exploration and development well beyond the next elected government. It must be nice to drive a new Porsche in a land of bicycles. Reach up your hand and pat yourselves on the back! You got what you wanted. Just like Indonesia, Venezuela, and Ghana, Canadian miners will be loath to deal in South Africa. (Damnit, our people found your diamonds!) Hell, if an expatriot professor like Chris Jennings can get screwed in RSA by finding diamonds that De Beers passed over a decade ago, well, how can anyone less well-connected expect to do business there? I talked with Chris Jennings before the press release and he was very calm and pleased at the course of events. Why? Gull, Infoman any comments? Why aren't you guys gloating? Confluence

To: nempela who wrote (1188)	5/22/1998 1:06:00 AM
From: DavidA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Hi Nempela, a wise move on behalf of SouthernEra in applying for a decision through "Section 24". If De Beers are seriously interested in concluding to a settlement with SouthernEra, this will expedite the process and that is presuming SUF are still interested. There's been a shift in that SUF are now sitting at the head of the table. P.S. Recall the statement by DME, 'We are not going to sit on the side lines and will deal with this issue' I wonder who suggested that section 17 be dropped ? I may have to thank Gull after all, I can't stop accumulating this stock. C.J. keep on swinging,

To: nempela who wrote (1188)	5/22/1998 1:43:00 AM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Could it be that SUF dropped its court case because it had no case? Amazing that this obvious conclusion evades everybody. This is what I saw happen at court: The court convened and the SUF counsel stood up and asked for a 15 minute adjournment. The following then transpired: 1.SUF abandoned the Section 17 application. 2.SUF abandoned the Interdict restraining the heirs/NGS from dealing with the mineral rights. 3.The Section 24 which everyone is so excited about has been ongoing for some time now and IMHO is of academic importance to the heirs as SUF have agreed to pay the same price as De Beers. I am amused at your impudence in suggesting that De Beers are not world leaders in marketing as well as mining and exploration. Why would SUF hire so many ex-De Beers staff if this was not the case. Have a look at the manager in charge of the Klipspringer Project where did he come from? You can find all these details on the SUF homepage.

To: nempela who wrote (1188)	5/22/1998 1:13:00 PM
From: Valuepro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Hi, Nempela You said, "... Giving the rights to De Beers simply cannot be construed as being in the public interest, no matter which way you cut it (and I'm sure the De Beers supporters on this thread will clamour about that). De Beers' true expertise is in marketing and selling diamonds. Let them do that! Suggesting that they are better than anyone else at mining them can't be substantiated and is basically just rhetoric. I'm sure they're good at it, but I would think it's simply not in the public interest to let them mine Marsfontein. ..." Agreed! I'm sure there are those who would argue with me that De Beers expertise lies in their ability to keep diamonds OFF THE MARKET. This is a fundamental fact about maintaining the cartel. Supply must be held to a minimum. That's why their brilliant marketing arm does so much better than their production arm. It also explains why they would not be a good partner for anyone wanting early cash flow from a new find. Long and strong on SUF, ValuePro