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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.r. earle who wrote (4422)	1/21/1998
From: Joe Bilich	Respond to of 10836

Some thoughts: Once Carson publishes that "PDG will release...", then if in fact PDG was going to do so, then PDG almost HAS TO release their statement IMMEDIATELY, or their shareholders will add one more count in the lawsuit against PDG by their shareholders that I would expect if in fact PDG loses. To delay would add more exposure. If they don't publish, their shareholders nail 'em for leaking material information to the market before officially publishing it (in addition to anything else they might sue about, like false and misleading statements re: the surety of their LC title...you know--little things like that). Timing of this release certainly suggests damage control, in many ways, to me.

To: c.r. earle who wrote (4422)	1/21/1998 12:47:00 AM
From: Ward Nicholson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Ward, I would be just a little nervous right now. IMHO it is not too difficult to read between the lines in the PDG release. With respect Alberto, "read(ing) between the lines" of a press release is something I learned not to do when it comes to trading decisions. But then, the game can be played many ways. How the market for KRY reacts to fundamental developments, or at least their potential, is what I focus on. That being said, I'll be the first to admit defeat if it should occur. Waiting for the bell. WN P.S. Anyone going to offer a cigarette before I'm shot by the S.I.-KRY-Bull-Deathsquads? I like Marlos. Heh heh.

To: c.r. earle who wrote (4422)	1/21/1998 8:41:00 AM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Alberto, I think that is too simplistic an analysis and shows your bias. "To anyone that has been following this saga closely for the last year or so, you must agree that this comment or assertion of PDG is certainly a departure (as another poster has already indicated)from the confident stance that PDG initially took, that they were 100% sure of their position." I have followed this saga since day one "and don't agree". Venezuela is attempting to repair a flawed structure within its judicial and managment systems of "mining" in one fell swoop. PDG and, I would presume KRY, donot want to be the "reason" for the judicial system to finally get even for blatant problems in the Energy & Mines division. PDG/KRY want a decision, not grandstanding, not politicing, not posturing, but a decision. The threat, by a "major" miner in the world, to pull out of "VENEZUELA"( not Las Christinas) "VENEZUELA" is a threat that will surely speed up the postering so far. IMHO - Does this deminish their claim to ownership to 4&6 ? Not at all, it is a strategy to get some overfed, pompous bureaucrats off their collective butts a little quicker. Appreciating this, can you think of any reason why PDG would spend more money on a property under dispute, in these conditions ? So the fact that they have stopped work, does not support your claim to title. At the moment Venezuela doesn't know who owns this property, how come you do ? Lastly, any wholesale changes in the title,licensing, validating, or issuing of mining permits that is "retroactive" to the PDG/KRY debacle may, as a result of the ruling, put other companies who thought they had "title" in an extremely precarious position. So check your portfolio for other companies that hold Venezuelan land claims !!! the Chief