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: George J. Tromp who wrote (1577)	6/14/1998 1:07:00 PM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

The Gospel according to George? I note that you have a technical background maybe you can answer just a few questions that I have asked without response about the M1: 1.Why did SUF assign diamond values to drill results? 2.Why no bulk sampling? 3.Why no mention of the dolerite sill? 4.Do you think that the results given on the M1 would stand up to an independent technical DD? 5.0.75mm stn-0.3cts? Perhaps you are very busy so I will not trouble you with too many questions. P.S.I wonder who is being arrogant? Read your own posting for a clue, perhaps the only thing you don't own is a little modesty. If De Beers did not control most of the output NONE of your very impressive diamond stock would be worth very much.

To: George J. Tromp who wrote (1577)	6/14/1998 1:41:00 PM
From: INFOMAN	Respond to of 7235

Why all the panic when there is some mention of De Deers? You hold De Beers stock, and for all the right reasons, one of them being to turn a profit on your investment. Why all the concern? De Beers has at current some 80 joint ventures with junior mining companies, mineral right holders etc, all of whom are quite happy to be associated with De Beers. If a few ' juniors' are unable to compete with a company such as De Beers, then they should perhaps move into another line of business. De Deers is not the sole marketer or producer of diamonds. You have mentioned others, and they have all survived. De Beers cannot, and should not be held responsible for any ' juniors' woes, especially when the ' junior ' had not applied itself to the simple mechanics of due diligence studies. If the confidence level, or image is affected, then they should look to the root of the problem and not attempt to transfer the cause of their woes to some other third party. These so called claims ( cracks appearing in De Beers ) that you postulate, have been around for decades, so this worn out theory (put out by ' junior ' shills) is just that- a theory. The industry if full of these Doomsday soothsayers, their revelations evaporating when history bypasses them. The success of the juniors, whether it be in mining, exploration or marketing, is vital for the industry, and I see no reason why they cannot contribute, providing they follow all the applicable rules. Good Day. INFOMAN

To: George J. Tromp who wrote (1577)	6/14/1998 3:11:00 PM
From: Peter Bourgeois	Respond to of 7235

Hello George! IMHO perhaps a different tact is required. Maybe the Heirs should send the SA Police to ensure that DeBeers did not steal Diamonds from M1 during their search 10 years ago. There is ample suggestive evidence on this thread that DeBeers knew about the diamonds 10 years ago. Maybe Rangold should sue DeBeers for issuing false reports to Rangold. If that is not the case, and it was only DeBeers Reps who were just adding fat to the fire, then SUF should sue for misrepresentation of the facts IMHO. I am sure that now it will be my turn to feel the wrath of our friends. At least it will spread the manure around. Cheers !!! Peter