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 (1225)	5/24/1998 8:00:00 AM
From: INFOMAN	Respond to of 7235

SUF's Chief Financial Officer's comments to S E Baker read more like SUF's obituary than anything else. Is this not somewhat premature? Could it be that SUF's legal counsel in SA are not communication with the executive? This could well be the case, as their strategy is fraught with dangers. It is self evident that they are unfocussed and lack any clear initiatives. There must of course be some fluidity in their overall corporate governance, but their inane actions and proposed strategy tell a different story. If the Minister refuses to invoke section 24 if favour of SUF, then they will return to fight a long legal battle......, and once again lose! This is not being ' proactive', but suicidal. Is it their wish to mine the M1 after they have first depreciated all their mining assets? Is this how they define long term strategy? Is this in the interests of the shareholders? Anyone with a modicum of business sense will see what their proposals are worth. SUF is afflicted by delusions of self importance. They are confusing 'whats good for the country' (SA) and what's good for SUF. In this case there is no relationship between the two, and their past record shows ample evidence to support this. If they had bothered to read their local papers, they would have noted that De Beers has invested substantially in other Canadian mining companies, as well as in exploration in Canada itself. Canada would of course have received foreign investment and job opportunities would have been created. Did De Beers strut around saying that this is in the best interests of Canada? SUF are assuming that only they are qualified to make a judgement of what is in the interests of SA. If this arrogance of theirs is any indication of how they will conduct themselves in SA, then perhaps they are not welcome there. If they are insistent in following ' this apparent legal detour ', then the rest of the world's resources would have already been depleted by the time they start mining on the M1. Regards.

To: GULL who wrote (1225)	5/24/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Jadrew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Gully Boy: Who do you represent? DeBeerS ? If you want to play DCF analysis games okay, lets play. However, your knowledge of SUF is M1. Check your posts. As I have stated a number of times I am shareholder of SUF, so who are you ? Regarding the M1 situation. If Debeers (your employer, I assumed) is able to IMO "steal" this deposit the ramifications on SA is a lot greater than my stake or for that matter the sum of the stakes of the SUF shareholders. Do you want to play international finance now ? Come on. Let's play....