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: VAUGHN who wrote (1500)	6/9/1998 8:20:00 PM
From: Confluence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Vaughn, Very well done on several posts today. I respect humbly that I have been one to escalate the "names" bit. I feel strongly about the misleading "facts" strewn about by certain parties; however, proper taste should carry the day. While your projections to the future are wonderful, the stock price in the very near term simply will not move until this impasse ends. To that end, I will toss out a scenario: SUF finds M1. Gets ready to mine, with assistance of DME. "Stuff" happens. More parties involved. SUF, Randgold and DME get their backs up. They believe they are right. They can smell De Beers, but have the "law" on their side. January becomes February -- nothing happening; SUF fasttracks Sugarbird blow; March 1 plant begins. SUF is a producer! Small, but given setback, any production is wonderful. (As an aside, the real reason I've owned SUF for years is the simple fact that they have so many irons in the fire) In March. very bad news for SUF: mineral rights have somehow been registered to NGS (this is going to be an issue for years) How? Doesn't matter. Negotiations happen. According to SUF, auction is sham because Anglo will outbid anyone. Result: De Beers makes deal with "heirs". More negotiations. De Beers wants an equity stake in SUF. SUF "will not give away the farm". (no pun intended). May happens with more negotiations, no resolution. Now De Beers only wants a big chunk of Klipspringer to fix deal. SUF says no way. Court date looms. Initial court action is against Dr. Maduna and Master of Supreme Court, along with Randgold and SUF. Delays. WHY? Suddenly, BOTH sides drop legal stance. (Something has happened that clearly has not been fully explained, no matter how simple some make it seem.) De Beers has clear path to Marsfontein, "heirs" people claim victory. But no. "Heirs" have not been paid. De Beers must do DD. Or something. Issue falls in lap of Dr. Maduna. De Beers has many other issues. Mr. Oppenheimer meets Dr. Maduna. Meetings with SUF resume. Both sides decide to be quiet. This is an issue between SUF and De Beers. NO! The "heirs" and Randgold are at the table! Why? De Beers has a deal with the "heirs". Or not? Randgold is SUF's partner (wish not). What is going on? Here is a solution: Why doesn't SUF pay the "heirs" 80 million Rand now? No DD, no politics, no De Beers, no Randgold. Nice and simple. Here's money, now. The "heirs" get what they want and more and sooner. SUF gets what it wants and sooner. No more talk. Action. And a few hundred people commence work right away. And further development goes forward. All are happy, n'est pas? Comments from our opposing South African friends? Confluence

To: VAUGHN who wrote (1500)	6/9/1998 9:41:00 PM
From: Jadrew	Respond to of 7235

Vaughn re: Obstacles If you check back on my earlier postings, they usually involved some type of financial forecast etc. on SUF's future. I have been a owner of SUF for a number of years. However, I was guilty as I believe many fellow shareholders of overlooking (in retrospect) a major issue. The diamond market is dominated by a major player, who has controlled the market for many years. While it can be argued that this player has brought stability to the market, it has also dominated the market. To think that a junior mining concern, no matter how successful in its exploration activities would be able to develop its full potential without a challenge is an oversight. The diamond demand is finite. An increasing supply must be absorbed by this major player. In order for SUF to be able to develop its projects it has to do so with the co-operation of this major player. This "co-operation" comes with a variety of strings attached. Lets hope a mutually acceptable deal can be worked out. If not, a number of parties will probably be hurt (SUF, DB, SA etc). Lets hope that arrogance doesn't kill the golden goose.

To: VAUGHN who wrote (1500)	6/10/1998 12:45:00 AM
From: Grant Baker	Respond to of 7235

Hi Vaughn. I like your theory, but the major flaw (as far as I can tell from my limited knowledge of the scenario) would be the dilution factor of new shares issued to finance some of the increased production you are forecasting. Notwithstanding the possible share prices that might be obtained, I definitely like the earnings potential of SUF. This stock will rebound when we finally have closure on this issue. Regards.

To: VAUGHN who wrote (1500)	6/10/1998 9:07:00 AM
From: Peter Bourgeois	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7235

Hi Vaughn! Good post, and that gentlemen is why our friends at DeBeers are in such a state. Obviously, that many diamonds being sold outside of their grasp is difficult to take. Perhaps just as much of a concern is the fact that other Diamond producers may follow SUF in the marketing of their own diamonds. Maybe SUF should set up its own selling org. to sell the diamonds of all the other producers who have had enough of DeBeers. God forbid. A revolt! Cheers !!! Peter