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: Doug Shapiro who wrote (6774)	3/12/1998 12:36:00 AM
From: Paul Sarjeant	Respond to of 10836

Hi Doug Your perception of what is before the SCJ is not entirely accurate. You owe it to yourself to check out the extensive summary of the case at: stockhouse.com or, if this appears too 'daunting', at least the fairly well balanced summary that was in yesterday's (March 10th) Globe and Mail (it has been posted somewhere here in the last day or so) All indication are that the current decision will be final, and NOT subject to appeal. In addition, it has nothing to do with ownership of the property, as that was established years ago, and has been confirmed twice since by the SCJ. The current decision relates to the revokation of permits issued by the MEM to CVG (and therefore Placer Dome). Many others here and on the Stockhouse *PKRY forum are vastly more knowledgeable than I am on this, and you should certainly post any questions you have. Be SURE you understand the details surrounding this case before you decide to hold or sell, you owe it to yourself!!!! The perception you have currently is a popular one, and is the main reason this stock is priced ridiculously low still <BG>. DD is definitely the key here. Good Luck in whatever you decide. Cheers, Paul

To: Doug Shapiro who wrote (6774)	3/12/1998 12:46:00 AM
From: Paul Sarjeant	Respond to of 10836

Hi Doug Me again. Just noticed another thought in your message re KRY "don't have any other real hot properties and are burning cash.". Actually they do, notably the Albino property quite near to the La Cristinas. KRY is in fact already generating revenue from gold off of the Albino property. A popular on-line dispute relates to the size of its gold reserves, consensus seems to be at least 400k ounces. KRY is definitely NOT a "one trick pony" (as compared to, say, the dreaded 'B' company)! Its just that the main trick is a BIG one, and catches all the attention <g>. Make sure you check out the link I posted for you, its worth the read. Cheers, Paul DISCLAIMER TO ALL Mention of the 'B' company in this post was for illustrative purposes only, and in no way intended to disrupt the 'positive energy field' surrounding KRY. Please don't hurt me. . . . . <BG>

To: Doug Shapiro who wrote (6774)	3/12/1998 2:38:00 AM
From: knowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Doug, This is what is before the Supreme Court(CSJ) at this time: The action asks the court to rescind eleven separate actions of MEM(Ministry of Energy & Mines): 1. the purported grant of an alluvial copper concession title over Cristinas 4 to CVG 2. the purported grant of an alluvial copper concession title over Cristinas 6 to CVG 3. the purported grant of a vein copper concession title over Cristinas 4 to CVG 4. the purported grant of a vein copper concession title over Cristinas 6 to CVG 5. resolution CJ-15 of the MEM, which denied renewal of Mael Cristinas 4 title 6. resolution 096 of the MEM, which purported to extinguish Mael's Cristinas 4 title 7. resolution 142 of the MEM, which purported to terminate Mael's Cristinas 6 title 8. resolution 217 of the MEM, which denied Mael's opposition of grant of copper concessions to CVG 9. resolution 251 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG 10. resolution 253 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG 11. resolution 255 of the MEM, which purported to issue vein copper titles to CVG All of the motions filed are related to Mael's ownership of the alluvial gold concessions at Cristinas 4 & 6. According to Venezuelan Mining Law, vein gold and other mineral alluvial rights (including copper) are subsidiary to the alluvial gold concessions, and cannot be claimed without a concession title. And we KNOW Mael(KRY) has the concession title because of the previous three ruling by the CSJ. Besides, The Admission Judge - in July - also acknowledged that Mael produced evidence that the registered concession titles are in the name of Mael. So you see, Mael(KRY) is NOT waiting for the court to rule on its title, but to CLEAR away the cloud put on the title by the MEM resolutions. Regards, Ken