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 (1241)	5/24/1998 6:00:00 PM
From: Confluence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Mr. Gull, Answers to your questions: G:Why the concern with payment to the heirs? IMHO that matter is academic as far as the heirs are concerned: 1.De Beers pays them. 2.SUF pays them if a miracle occurs with Section 24. C: The concern is that with the legal problems surrounding section 17 having been removed, De Beers is in a position to pay the "heirs", take posession of the assets of NGS and begin dealing with Marsfontein. They have made only the comment that they are reviewing their options. Options? I thought there was a deal with NGS. The music is playing, why are they not dancing? G: I should have charged money for all this advise - I hope that at least a few people read the early postings and made some good decisions. The writing was on the wall - no-one wanted to tread it. C: The story is far from over. As my last post, why not wait until it is over, and then we can look back and judge. G: Why not ask SUF a couple of questions? C: Which questions. Since you haven't talked with them, let me know what questions you have and I'll pass them along. You could email them by going to their website: southernera.com G: I don't think that Marsfontein even rates up there with the biggies as far as the Minister is concerned. C: Maybe its not a big concern, but his comments indicate he is aware of an ongoing problem with mineral rights, and he indicated a willingness to act in the future through legislative change and in the present through "transitional" actions. G: If you read the Section 24 you will see that his options are quite clear. One cannot expect the publics interests to be that flexible. C: I think we agree that Section 24 is clear. The public interest is exactly the issue here. Is the public interest best served by catering to group of "heirs" whose ancestors did not appear to follow proper procedures for mineral rights succession, or by opening up the whole country to increased exploration and development, thereby providing jobs, industry and wealth for the future? Hmmmm, lets get a reasonable handle here: 29 people benefit and foreign miners question spending time and resources in RSA in the future, or the door is opened wide and much more exploratory work commences quickly? G: SUF is not the only foreign company mining in SA , the others don;t seem to have had that much trouble. C: I have no ability to comment on the troubles of other foreign companies working in RSA. I do know, however, that several Canadian mining firms will not work in RSA under present systems. You can very this by checking out the first few Financial Post articles from several weeks ago, as they cite comments from some of these companies. G: The mining laws in SA have been around for quite a long time. C: I think this goes to your questions about the status quo --- and, well, times they are a changin' G: There are a lot of unanswered questions as to SUF regarding the whole M1 fiasco. C: Again, please state the questions or direct them to SUF. They will certainly respond to you. Confluence