South China Resources Share Discussion Threads

[davethechef] 06/1/2008 22:13

Namibia produced 3,067 tonnes of uranium last year- the sixth largest total in the world

[andy] 06/1/2008 13:35

Bannerman are on the main TSX rather than the venture, and with a market cap of around $390 million!

I would the potential risk is to the downside, [articularly if the licence dispute is protracted.

[davethechef] 06/1/2008 13:17

Interesting, thanks guys.
So A.C is indeed involed with aforementioned Bannerman Resc.
Must have clocked up some hefty airmiles, A.C; he certainly gets about. But China & Tibet, sore memories.

Future developments, will atleast be intriguing, but successful... time will tell.

[tippingpoint] 06/1/2008 12:16

Cant help but feel a trend is emerging here....

[nobull] 06/1/2008 12:07

Thanks for that A.

Further details here...



"Bannerman Resources from Australia holds exploration licences at Goanikontes in the Namib Desert.

A full feasibility study will be undertaken this year, with construction planned near Goanikontes in 2009 and production to start in 2010.

It found significant uranium ore deposits, as far as 300 metres deep, over the 2,3-km-long stretch during drilling in December 2007.

How the proposed uranium mine will affect tourism to Goanikontes in the Swakop River and the famous moon landscape nearby is still unknown. " From an article in the Namibian.

and further detail here on the dispute...



EPL UNDER THREAT
Bannerman Namibian uranium license validity challenged
The validity of an exploration licence hosting Bannerman Resources' Goanikontes Anomaly A deposit in Namibia, which it intends to mine by 2011, is being challenged in the country's High Court.

Author: Rodrick Mukumbira
Posted: Thursday , 20 Dec 2007

WINDHOEK - The only thing known about Savanna Marble CC is that it has identified "attractive marble for exports" in Namibia's uranium-rich Erongo region, but is short of "N$1.6 million or (US$228,690) for the purchase of additional equipment and as working capital", according to a spatial development initiative to promote the country's coastal areas.

But the small outfit (it is a closed corporation) is likely to jeopardise ASX- and TSX-quoted Bannerman Resources Ltd. [(ASX: BMN; TSX: BAN)'s plans of exploiting Namibia's rich uranium deposits.

On Thursday the Namibian-focused Australian company announced that it is facing court action in the south western country over an exploration tenement in the Erongo region, EPL3345, brought about by Savanna Marble, which is seeking an order to declare the granting of the licence null and void.

Savanna, which says the EPL is overlapping on its tenement in the same area, has sued Namibian Minister of Mines and Energy, Bannerman's 80% owned subsidiary Bannerman Mining Resources Namibia and one Robert D. Wirtz, whom the Australian company says has no connection with it.

It is also seeking an order reviewing and correcting or setting aside the decision taken by the Minister of Mines and Energy in Namibia to grant Bannerman Namibia EPL3345 with exclusive mineral rights for the nuclear fuel group of minerals over the area covered by Savanna's EPL3045.

EPL3345, which the company calls Welwitschia after a desert plant, hosts Bannerman Resources' Goanikontes Anomaly A deposit, where it is planning a US$300 to US$400-million uranium mine.

In September Bannerman Resources realised a scoping study on the deposit that indicated it to be economically viable, and announced that it could begin production in mid-2011.

It said mining and milling would be similar to that of diversified giant Rio Tinto's nearby Rössing mine, with a maximum production target of 4,000 tons per year yellow cake.

On Friday this week, nevertheless, it was on the defensive over Anomaly A, saying the court action will have no effect on its work at the deposit.

Mineweb could not confirm with the Ministry of Mines if Namibian law allowed for the overlapping mining permits for different minerals, as stated by Peter Batten, Bannerman's managing director.

"This is quite common," said Batten. "Apart from the Savanna dimension stone prospecting licence there is also a mining licence for copper, a prospecting licence for limestone and an application for mica. Bannerman Namibia does not expect that Savanna's right to mine dimension stone will impact Bannerman's ability to explore for and mine uranium in the overlapping parts of its licences."

He added, "The proceedings are an attack on the decision of the Namibian Minister for Mines to grant EPL3345 and the company has formed the view that the proceedings have no proper foundation and are unlikely to succeed."

Bannerman Resources' shares opened at CAN$3.160, down 0.63%, in Toronto and at A$3.400, down 6.85%, on the ASX.

[ananinginainana] 06/1/2008 11:06

All

So SCR are now to concentrate their efforts in "SOUTHERN Africa", not SOUTH Africa.

From the update:

"The geographical focus will be in Southern Africa. The investments may be either quoted or unquoted and may be in companies, partnerships, joint ventures or direct interests in ENERGY projects. The Company intends to be an involved and active investor even though it might not hold a controlling interest in its investments."

There is another company currently working in Southern Africa surveying URANIUM, it's called Bannerman Resources Ltd and is listed on the Australian stock exchange.

Who are the directors of this company? They include Alistair Clayton, Nathan McMahon and Clive Jones (the guy who just purchased a few million shares in SCR).

A company in southern africa have just brought high court proceedings against Bannerman, which may prove costly, unless of course they can raise extra cash by, say, getting another company to invest in them or buy out their licence for the disputed territory.

Everybody now. On the count of three!... one, two, three....bend over!

A

[acornoptical] 04/1/2008 16:47

this is not a ramp but look at BRM who are based in africa what interested me was lnrow sa being involved and what is said about oppertunities

[nobull] 04/1/2008 14:09

Thanks for that. Happy New Year.

[ananinginainana] 04/1/2008 13:34

Happy New Year All

I've just reported the company regarding what, in my opinion, amounts to a breach of Aim Rules 10 and 17 (Sch 2, para G).

The person at Aim Regulations has assured me that this will be fully investigated.

Whether it amounts to anything we shall have to wait and see.

I wonder whether this has been a cash shell and used to fund their other business pursuits and company shareholdings.

For me, this is not about losing money but about the board showing respect to the shareholders which, I feel, has been non existent.

A

[andy] 02/1/2008 16:31

HNY to all that remain here, hope 2008 starts to repay your faith!

[gilbertd] 02/1/2008 15:55

Trywhitt is rumoured to have been a bit dodgy by some for some considerable time....

[ananinginainana] 24/12/2007 13:16

If I can be facetious for a moment, the fact that it is discussed on a bb does not absolve the company of its duties.

IMO it is in clear breach of AIM rules as far as director declarations go, whether that breach had a material effect is perhaps in question but, if it was declared at the time it would hardly have enhanced the prospects appeal.


Merry Christmas

[simon54] 24/12/2007 12:47

Well, I take your point that it seems a reasonable question as to why the Orchid directorship was not declared, though it may be there is a technical explanation for that (I have no idea really). I was not concerned at the time, since the history was readily available (in fact, Orchid's relationship with Zangge was discussed at the time of the Zhunuo agreement, before Tyrwhitt's appointment). You're right that an awareness of the potential pitfalls of operating in China should have been a factor in investors' thinking, but I think the information relating to that was referenced here.

Anyway, a Merry Christmas to all!

[ananinginainana] 24/12/2007 12:17

Simon54

That's my point!

There was much to be learned by Orchid's involvement in Tibet so why was this not declared in the RNS.

Bay Resources ditched it's involvement because of hurdles being placed in it's way.
Orchid ditched it's involvement because of hurdles.
SCR ditched it's involvement because of hurdles.

Mr Tyrwhitt was involved in all three.

Something whiffy this way comes.

[simon54] 24/12/2007 11:15

ananinginainana - I doubt that there was anything untoward about the announcement of Dr T's appointment - [Edit: see below]. The Orchid history was discussed at or about the time on this board (Orchid had been discussed before, in fact, though not in respect of Dr T). I didn't, and still don't 'read it' as particular evidence of directorship failing, but rather as an example of the Chinese playing hard ball in negotiations over what had become clear to be a significant asset. In fact, when Dr T was appointed, I considered his experience of Orchid's fate would be advantageous to SCR.

In both Orchid's and SCR's cases there is much to be learned of the down side of operating in China. As a shareholder at the time I don't feel pleased by the amount paid in consultancy fees, but I can't see any reason to think that was improper.

[Edit: looking again at this, I see that Bay Resources is declared as a past directorship of Dr Tyrwhitt. As memory serves, Orchid acquired its China interests from this company - in case that seems relevant].

[drewz] 24/12/2007 10:29

No money (to speak of).

No management (worth having).

And now, no projects!


How did it come to this?

[ananinginainana] 24/12/2007 09:52

Directors have a duty of skill & care.

Generally, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law. Especially when you are the managing director.

I've posted my intentions elsewhere and will leave it until the new year but I fully intend to proceed.

I may take your advice though Andy. Thanks for that.

[nobull] 24/12/2007 09:46

One case I recall was a software company that claimed to have signed contracts in an RNS before they had been signed. The Finance Director in his defence at Lambeth (Crown Court?) said he didn't know anything about finance! I bet he didn't put that on his CV!

[andy] 24/12/2007 09:26

ananinginainana,

Maybe relate the facts to the FSA without giving any names, and see if they think you should report it?

[nobull] 24/12/2007 09:18

With you on that emotionally but until I have read the rules myself I can't give a more considered response. I would be surprised if they didn't have to "knowingly" commit the offence and proving that is probably no easy matter. Will have a look in the City Business Library and see if I can find any info out about this sort of thing. It is perhaps closed over the holiday period though. Also there is the matter of how material the omission was? Anyone with info on what has happened in other such cases? Torex? Was that a similar sort of thing (misleading RNS's). Will try and read up about it and report back in a few days' time.

[ananinginainana] 24/12/2007 08:57

All

Would any shareholders have a problem if I reported this crowd to the FSA.

Under FSA rules it is a criminal offence to issue an RNS which is misleading and may induce another person to exercise or refrain from exercising rights in relation to an investment.

It is also a requirement that all directorships held within the previous 5 years are disclosed.

It is my view that the RNS issued to announce the appointment of David Tyrwhitt falls into such a category.

It failed to disclose his directorship of Orchid Capital during which he was involved in a very similar project to that of Zhunuo in Tibet, indeed Zangge were also involved and similarly "frustrated" Orchid, which resulted in the loss of over £3M. Orchid Capital delisted shortly after they decided to cease their involvement in Tibet.

Had this information been made available at the time of Tyrwhitt's appointment it is likely that some shareholders would have taken a different view of his appointment, and the Zhunuo project, to the one taken in the absence of this information.

Mcmahon & Clayton must have known about this or, if they didn't, were extremely negligent IMO.

Any thoughts folks?

[nobull] 24/12/2007 08:38

To release the results on a Friday isn't good, on Friday before Xmas is worse, on Friday before Xmas after the market has closed is dispicable and on Friday before Xmas after the market has closed within a few days before the time limit for publication is: well words fail me. See you at the AGM AC.

[nobull] 24/12/2007 07:17

:-) Sense of humour failure on my part investing in this stock. Sorry.

[tippingpoint] 23/12/2007 15:09

sorry my comment was meant slightly tongue in cheek