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 : Donner Minerals (DML.V) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (6374)	7/29/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: Zardoz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 11676

Give her the beer! In BC {forgot the compnay} BC refused to give a compnay a right to mine. After all the work had been down. Reason, it was going to be put into a park land.

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (6374)	7/29/1998 10:24:00 PM
From: Ed Pakstas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 11676

Liz my Dear... A quick glance at the last newspaper article will show you that that the entire arguement with the Nfld. Gov't is over a smelter and INCO receiving tax grants for the construction of same... >>>If Inco can not show that they have an interest in the property I guess INCO's financial interest means nothing... You still haven't given me your definition of Fee Simple... So I'll give you the legal one... "Fee Simple is the land interest with the highest rights and fewest obligations and is generally thought of as absolute ownership. The holder of this estate has the right to use, sell, lease, enter or give away his property, or to refrain from any of these rights." The later part can also be known as the "Bundle of Rights" which is also known as ownership, however, every owner of land is subject to restrictions imposed by laws of governing authorities. >>>Unless you own a Crown Grant you have no interest in the property.<<< That's part of the "tenure" in the "Bundle of Rights" Now after reading the bold portion of the last statement and if you were in the position of cutting a cheque for over ONE BILLION DOLLARS, don't you think that you would have done your due dilligence with your bank of high priced lawyers and ensured yourself of the fact that you had the right or "tenure" to mine whatever you found, even though a payment of sorts may be directed to the Provincial Gov't on more than likely a per ounce produced basis... Notwithstanding this, you and I both don't know the terms of the agreement that was ironed out with DFR before the cheque was cut, so this whole discussion is baseless... This still doesn't resolve your Communistic statements about the Canadian Gov't... I think it is YOU that owes the apology and a round for all... ...ed