bane2007's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/69657/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/45260-crystallex-flounders-as-circumstances-worsen?source=feed#comment-94529 94529
Your defence of Crystallex fails in that you attempt to portray the losses listed in the financial statements as being a result of normal course expenditures for a junior producer. They are anything but. I don't expect you to know that as that type of knowledge is derived from reading the financial statements and the management's discussion of the results which is something you have not done.

As far as Crystallex mining Las Cristinas, that is a question that is still up the in air.

Thank you again for your interest in my article.]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:51:23 -0400
Your defence of Crystallex fails in that you attempt to portray the losses listed in the financial statements as being a result of normal course expenditures for a junior producer. They are anything but. I don't expect you to know that as that type of knowledge is derived from reading the financial statements and the management's discussion of the results which is something you have not done.

As far as Crystallex mining Las Cristinas, that is a question that is still up the in air.

Thank you again for your interest in my article.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/45260-crystallex-flounders-as-circumstances-worsen?source=feed#comment-94436 94436
The one constant among the critics of my articles is that they make accusations but no one is actually able to say what it is that I am being untruthful about.]]> Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:37:08 -0400
The one constant among the critics of my articles is that they make accusations but no one is actually able to say what it is that I am being untruthful about.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/45260-crystallex-flounders-as-circumstances-worsen?source=feed#comment-94338 94338
As to giving any merit to my articles, should you decide to check, when I initially opted to write about Crystallex, the share price was much higher and fanatics like you peppered it with accusations and responses telling me I was wrong and presenting false evidence. This would be proven when the permit arrived shortly and KRY became a success.

The critics were wrong. Should anything more be said ?

Regards,

JLB]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:30:11 -0400
As to giving any merit to my articles, should you decide to check, when I initially opted to write about Crystallex, the share price was much higher and fanatics like you peppered it with accusations and responses telling me I was wrong and presenting false evidence. This would be proven when the permit arrived shortly and KRY became a success.

The critics were wrong. Should anything more be said ?

Regards,

JLB]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/45260-crystallex-flounders-as-circumstances-worsen?source=feed#comment-94334 94334
You said that Tradewinds purchased 15 million Crystallex shares on the cheap the past week. That is an unduly erroneous comment. If you have access to EDGAR, you should use it. The 13F was filed for the quarter ended June 29th. Any purchases were therefore done at least two months ago. Tradewinds also did not purchase the shares you claim. The 13F was also filed on behalf of Nuveen Inv., Inc. which has held a majority of those shares for quite a long time. You are doing can more or less be called a double reporting due to the affiliation of the companies involved.

Tradewinds Global Investors, LLC, Nuveen Asset Management, NWQ Investment Management Company, Rittenhouse Asset Management, Inc., Santa Barbara Asset Management, LLC, and Symphony Asset Management LLC. All are registered investment advisors and subsidiaries of Nuveen Investments,

If this is too complicated for you, buy a book or take a course.

You published a rebuttal to an article I wrote in April. The share price at that time was in excess of 30 percent higher than today. By your very own measures the stock is failing. Do I need to say anything more ?

In that same article I addressed how Crystallex likes to blame inaccurate reports from the media for its woes. It is ironic then that they are now using what can only loosely be termed as media to promote their stock without concern for accuracy.

You are still a very confused investor.

Regards,

JLB]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:09:54 -0400
You said that Tradewinds purchased 15 million Crystallex shares on the cheap the past week. That is an unduly erroneous comment. If you have access to EDGAR, you should use it. The 13F was filed for the quarter ended June 29th. Any purchases were therefore done at least two months ago. Tradewinds also did not purchase the shares you claim. The 13F was also filed on behalf of Nuveen Inv., Inc. which has held a majority of those shares for quite a long time. You are doing can more or less be called a double reporting due to the affiliation of the companies involved.

Tradewinds Global Investors, LLC, Nuveen Asset Management, NWQ Investment Management Company, Rittenhouse Asset Management, Inc., Santa Barbara Asset Management, LLC, and Symphony Asset Management LLC. All are registered investment advisors and subsidiaries of Nuveen Investments,

If this is too complicated for you, buy a book or take a course.

You published a rebuttal to an article I wrote in April. The share price at that time was in excess of 30 percent higher than today. By your very own measures the stock is failing. Do I need to say anything more ?

In that same article I addressed how Crystallex likes to blame inaccurate reports from the media for its woes. It is ironic then that they are now using what can only loosely be termed as media to promote their stock without concern for accuracy.

You are still a very confused investor.

Regards,

JLB]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/37636-crystallexs-las-cristinas-contract-in-doubt?source=feed#comment-88281 88281
Thank you also for providing your credentials but I don't see your need for listing them other an attempt at gaining come level of credibility for your argument. What does you in though is your focus on Crystallex's pending environmental permit application as an evaluation of the article. If you decide to reread the article, you will see that it is not the focus of the article and is not even mentioned. I hope you do not display this type of attention deficit at your place of work.

Moreover the article was about mining legislation in Venezuela and comments made by President Chavez, a topic you did not even touch on.

In this regard, your whole critique lacks any connection to the article. Your discussions with individuals at SNC Lavalin and Crystallex's CEO fare the same fate.

As you deem yourself an expert at understanding the permitting and development process, you might consider replying to the following questions in order to assist your friend and other readers.

A) If the permitting process is a lengthy one, how is it Crystallex was able to tell investors that they expected to receive it mere months after handing over the EISA ? How has it been possible that Crystallex has been telling investors that it expected to receive the permit any day, sooner rather than later or at any moment for several years but then the CEO Gordon Thompson said Crystallex had only recently submitted the final documentation to the MinAmb ?

B) I will give you one thing. When pointing out a mistake I have alread admitted to and apologized for, you said that the problem with evaluating a 2-year old documentation is that it could have impacted a decision to buy a stock, in your case, Phelps Dodge. I would like to turn your attention to another 2 years old document. Crystallex's feasibility study.

With your education and knowledge of the industry, how much do you think the costs listed in the study will increase accounting for inflation, penalty fees, contract renegotiations and all ?

Knowing even an estimate of the current numbers may well impact a decision to buy a stock.

Regards,

JLB]]> Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:11:16 -0400
Thank you also for providing your credentials but I don't see your need for listing them other an attempt at gaining come level of credibility for your argument. What does you in though is your focus on Crystallex's pending environmental permit application as an evaluation of the article. If you decide to reread the article, you will see that it is not the focus of the article and is not even mentioned. I hope you do not display this type of attention deficit at your place of work.

Moreover the article was about mining legislation in Venezuela and comments made by President Chavez, a topic you did not even touch on.

In this regard, your whole critique lacks any connection to the article. Your discussions with individuals at SNC Lavalin and Crystallex's CEO fare the same fate.

As you deem yourself an expert at understanding the permitting and development process, you might consider replying to the following questions in order to assist your friend and other readers.

A) If the permitting process is a lengthy one, how is it Crystallex was able to tell investors that they expected to receive it mere months after handing over the EISA ? How has it been possible that Crystallex has been telling investors that it expected to receive the permit any day, sooner rather than later or at any moment for several years but then the CEO Gordon Thompson said Crystallex had only recently submitted the final documentation to the MinAmb ?

B) I will give you one thing. When pointing out a mistake I have alread admitted to and apologized for, you said that the problem with evaluating a 2-year old documentation is that it could have impacted a decision to buy a stock, in your case, Phelps Dodge. I would like to turn your attention to another 2 years old document. Crystallex's feasibility study.

With your education and knowledge of the industry, how much do you think the costs listed in the study will increase accounting for inflation, penalty fees, contract renegotiations and all ?

Knowing even an estimate of the current numbers may well impact a decision to buy a stock.

Regards,

JLB]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/37636-crystallexs-las-cristinas-contract-in-doubt?source=feed#comment-87969 87969 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:36:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/37636-crystallexs-las-cristinas-contract-in-doubt?source=feed#comment-87962 87962
About the Presidential Press Release. You are correct. My bad. I received the page via e-mail and as the mood of the message fit so well, I failed to properly check the published date. The section referring to the press release should be discarded. It is unfortunately not feasible that it is deleted under the current format but let it be known that I retract all references to that release.

I appreciate your feedback. It is refreshing to hear from someone who is knowledgable about Crystallex and Venezuela instead of the usual diatribes that are contributed by Crystallex supporters.]]> Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:24:26 -0400
About the Presidential Press Release. You are correct. My bad. I received the page via e-mail and as the mood of the message fit so well, I failed to properly check the published date. The section referring to the press release should be discarded. It is unfortunately not feasible that it is deleted under the current format but let it be known that I retract all references to that release.

I appreciate your feedback. It is refreshing to hear from someone who is knowledgable about Crystallex and Venezuela instead of the usual diatribes that are contributed by Crystallex supporters.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/36811-crystallexs-speculative-shine-begins-to-tarnish?source=feed#comment-87317 87317
For New Yorkers or those who have on-line access, there is an interesting article in today's NY Post about Shake Shack. It is a popular Burger kiosk that has lineups around the corner. Shades of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi. Steve Cuozzo reviewed it and tore it to shreds. The point of mentioning the article is that I may be naive about hidden agendas but the thought did not occur to me that Cuozzo was being paid by a competitor to write the article or that he had ulterior motives. I took the article at its face value, a suggestion not to waste my time or money. I may be missing out on something special but I don't think so. The Crystallex case is only slightly different. Here I get to see the ingredients beforehand and taste it for myself. It only makes me gag.

www.nypost.com/seven/0...

That I am deliberately attempting to hurt the share price of Crystallex is a ludicrous claim. Everything I wrote and referenced is documented in the regulatory filings of both Crystallex and Gold Reserve. If it looks negative, it's because it is. I accept no responsibility for the terrible job Crystallex's executives do.

What I have done is warn people not to waste their time or money by looking at Crystallex as an investment. This is a gamble purely and simply and in the end the pot is not even worth the risk. What stacks the odds against the gambler even more than normal is that the dealer, in this case the management of the company, does not deal fairly. They hide cards up their sleeves, bottom deal and so forth. There is no question about this at all. When they have visited the city, I have spoken face to face with several of the main individuals in the company, some who have already abandoned ship or been forced to walk the plank. I have a good sense of how they operate. Welcome to the snake pit.

My final comment is about my conjectures about the new law in mining to be passed. These conjectures, if that is what you want to call them, are drawn from comments made by the politicians in charge of such things. If you want to blame anyone, blame them but I would make the suggestion that you wait for the law to be passed and see the fallout before deciding who is misleading whom.]]> Wed, 30 May 2007 19:27:13 -0400
For New Yorkers or those who have on-line access, there is an interesting article in today's NY Post about Shake Shack. It is a popular Burger kiosk that has lineups around the corner. Shades of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi. Steve Cuozzo reviewed it and tore it to shreds. The point of mentioning the article is that I may be naive about hidden agendas but the thought did not occur to me that Cuozzo was being paid by a competitor to write the article or that he had ulterior motives. I took the article at its face value, a suggestion not to waste my time or money. I may be missing out on something special but I don't think so. The Crystallex case is only slightly different. Here I get to see the ingredients beforehand and taste it for myself. It only makes me gag.

www.nypost.com/seven/0...

That I am deliberately attempting to hurt the share price of Crystallex is a ludicrous claim. Everything I wrote and referenced is documented in the regulatory filings of both Crystallex and Gold Reserve. If it looks negative, it's because it is. I accept no responsibility for the terrible job Crystallex's executives do.

What I have done is warn people not to waste their time or money by looking at Crystallex as an investment. This is a gamble purely and simply and in the end the pot is not even worth the risk. What stacks the odds against the gambler even more than normal is that the dealer, in this case the management of the company, does not deal fairly. They hide cards up their sleeves, bottom deal and so forth. There is no question about this at all. When they have visited the city, I have spoken face to face with several of the main individuals in the company, some who have already abandoned ship or been forced to walk the plank. I have a good sense of how they operate. Welcome to the snake pit.

My final comment is about my conjectures about the new law in mining to be passed. These conjectures, if that is what you want to call them, are drawn from comments made by the politicians in charge of such things. If you want to blame anyone, blame them but I would make the suggestion that you wait for the law to be passed and see the fallout before deciding who is misleading whom.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/34726-crystallex-promotion-politics-and-permits?source=feed#comment-85655 85655
What we have to go on is the mining law draft that has been presented and can be found on the Asamblea Nacional website. www.asambleanacional.g...

This document provides for the conversion of expired concessions to joint ventures but provides no specific protection for operating contracts. As I wrote, if the new laws were clear, concrete and easily understandable, Mr. Kahn could have confidently said that the MOA would not be affected. Instead he chose to say that no decision had yet been made which by itself implies that changes are possible. Do not get hung up on the word expired. The law is not meant to deal solely with those concessions that have expired but also those that will expire at the end of their terms.

Perhaps this recent fact that contradicts your argument slipped your mind..............

UPDATE 1-Venezuela says undecided over Crystallex project
(Adds minister quotes, Crystallex comment, background)
By Ana Isabel Martinez

CARACAS, April 18 (Reuters) - Venezuela's mining minister said on Wednesday the government still has to decide whether to put under state control a gold project that Canadian miner Crystallex hopes to operate.

The official's remarks to Reuters contradicted a news article that cited his vice minister as saying the decision had been made to take over the project, causing the miner's stock to fall on Tuesday.

Crystallex's share price has been sensitive to news over whether the government -- which has been on a nationalization drive in other industries this year -- will allow it to develop the massive Las Cristinas project.

The main delay has been over the company receiving an environmental permit.

But investors also worry a mining law the government is working on could also mean that, even if Crystallex does gain its permit, it may be forced to be a minority partner with the government in control of any development of the project.

After his vice minister was quoted as saying the project would have to be converted into a "mixed company" where the state would take a majority stake, Mining Minister Jose Khan played down that position in an interview with Reuters.

Asked if Crystallex could operate the project should it receive a permit, Khan said, "I do not know -- the law has not been approved yet."

On Tuesday, as the share price was falling due to the vice minister's comments, Crystallex spokesman Richard Marshall said, "We've certainly had a few phone calls on the story, but... in any of the meetings we've had with the government, which have been frequent, there's nothing new that we're aware of."

Khan explained that the proposed law meant generally converting mining projects into mixed companies run by the state with minority private partners.

But he also left open the possibility that there could be exceptions.

"I do not know if Crystallex (will have to join a mixed company) because, in fact, I do not want to say that a specific company will do, but rather I am talking about companies generally."

(With additional reporting by Cameron French in Toronto)

((Writing by Saul Hudson, editing by Marguerita Choy; Caracas newsroom, Reuters messaging:brian.ellswo... email: brian.ellsworth@reuter... +58-212-277-2655))]]> Mon, 07 May 2007 13:03:47 -0400
What we have to go on is the mining law draft that has been presented and can be found on the Asamblea Nacional website. www.asambleanacional.g...

This document provides for the conversion of expired concessions to joint ventures but provides no specific protection for operating contracts. As I wrote, if the new laws were clear, concrete and easily understandable, Mr. Kahn could have confidently said that the MOA would not be affected. Instead he chose to say that no decision had yet been made which by itself implies that changes are possible. Do not get hung up on the word expired. The law is not meant to deal solely with those concessions that have expired but also those that will expire at the end of their terms.

Perhaps this recent fact that contradicts your argument slipped your mind..............

UPDATE 1-Venezuela says undecided over Crystallex project
(Adds minister quotes, Crystallex comment, background)
By Ana Isabel Martinez

CARACAS, April 18 (Reuters) - Venezuela's mining minister said on Wednesday the government still has to decide whether to put under state control a gold project that Canadian miner Crystallex hopes to operate.

The official's remarks to Reuters contradicted a news article that cited his vice minister as saying the decision had been made to take over the project, causing the miner's stock to fall on Tuesday.

Crystallex's share price has been sensitive to news over whether the government -- which has been on a nationalization drive in other industries this year -- will allow it to develop the massive Las Cristinas project.

The main delay has been over the company receiving an environmental permit.

But investors also worry a mining law the government is working on could also mean that, even if Crystallex does gain its permit, it may be forced to be a minority partner with the government in control of any development of the project.

After his vice minister was quoted as saying the project would have to be converted into a "mixed company" where the state would take a majority stake, Mining Minister Jose Khan played down that position in an interview with Reuters.

Asked if Crystallex could operate the project should it receive a permit, Khan said, "I do not know -- the law has not been approved yet."

On Tuesday, as the share price was falling due to the vice minister's comments, Crystallex spokesman Richard Marshall said, "We've certainly had a few phone calls on the story, but... in any of the meetings we've had with the government, which have been frequent, there's nothing new that we're aware of."

Khan explained that the proposed law meant generally converting mining projects into mixed companies run by the state with minority private partners.

But he also left open the possibility that there could be exceptions.

"I do not know if Crystallex (will have to join a mixed company) because, in fact, I do not want to say that a specific company will do, but rather I am talking about companies generally."

(With additional reporting by Cameron French in Toronto)

((Writing by Saul Hudson, editing by Marguerita Choy; Caracas newsroom, Reuters messaging:brian.ellswo... email: brian.ellsworth@reuter... +58-212-277-2655))]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/34726-crystallex-promotion-politics-and-permits?source=feed#comment-85653 85653 Mon, 07 May 2007 12:38:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/31377-crystallex-continues-to-confuse-investors?source=feed#comment-83656 83656
1: Thompson never mentions a "new" process. He says that the KRY process will take longer since it is associated with CVG.

Thompson is very clear. He says “We got our permit under the new process established by the Chavez government, which creates a situation where we have a partner, (the Corporation Venezolano de Guayana or CVG), that takes a little longer,"

You are incorrect in your statement of fact.

2: The Rodriguez quote (though when read in one way is very positive and not negative) is now roundly discredited as having been part of scam to drive the KRY price down just as it was rising

There has been no discrediting of the comments made by Mr. Rodriguez. Reuters stands by their story and Mr. Rodriguez stands by his comments. You may reach Mr. Christian Oliver at the following e-mail address if you want to take this up with him. "christian.oliver"

You are incorrect in your statement of fact.

3: How could a Reuters reporter write something based on one source, who is not even the primary contact person?

Mr. Rodriguez is the contact person at the MinAmb for the approval of the ESIA.

You are incorrect in you statement of fact.

4: Once the permit is issued, it is operational and whoever owns Crystallex and its deposits is not required to go through permitting again. The buyout happens after the permit. Everyone knows this, to present it otherwise is to twist the truth.

It is Mr. Thompson, Crystallex's CEO who made the comment about starting all over again, not I. It is also my understanding that Crystallex will have to submit anther ESIA for approval if they do move ahead with their expansion plans. If you have any accurate and concrete information suggesting that the deposits would not require further permitting, I hope you write them in reply to me. If you are unable to provide this information then I and all other readers can conclude that your comment that a buyout happens after the EISA approval but is precluded from happening before it is wrong.

You are incorrect in your statement of fact.

5: Obviously GRZ's permit was not delayed, but for GRZ to be 'operational' they rely on common investments from KRY including infrastructure (airport etc.), so it looks like GRZ is not such a great investment without KRY also being permitted.


In my research and investigations for this article, I have confirmed that the Las Brisas mine can go ahead even if the Las Cristinas mine is stalled. As I reported, Mr. Thompson's comment was wrong. Please provide contrary information if you have it. I will even accept a current denial from Crystallex if you can get it as I have been unable to. You may reach them at info@crystallex.com

6: It has already been shown in the SEC filings that KRY does have a plan to deal with cyanide. Moreover, the copper was never part of the plan and will never be until it is economic to extract it. This was settled with MIBAM.

Once again, the comments about cyanide or copper production were not mine. They came from Mr. Rodriguez. I did not write that Crystallex had no plans for cyanide treatment but having plans does not mean that those plans meet with the approval of the MinAmb. Mr. Rodriguez is saying that they do not.

In your neck of the backwoods, it may be accepted practice to libel someone's character or damage their reputation for your own gain but according to the laws of this country, it is illegal to do so.

Please respond to my concerns above, issue an apology if you are unable to provide concrete information or list the name of your legal representitive so that we may contact them.

Best regards,

JLB]]> Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:41:20 -0400
1: Thompson never mentions a "new" process. He says that the KRY process will take longer since it is associated with CVG.

Thompson is very clear. He says “We got our permit under the new process established by the Chavez government, which creates a situation where we have a partner, (the Corporation Venezolano de Guayana or CVG), that takes a little longer,"

You are incorrect in your statement of fact.

2: The Rodriguez quote (though when read in one way is very positive and not negative) is now roundly discredited as having been part of scam to drive the KRY price down just as it was rising

There has been no discrediting of the comments made by Mr. Rodriguez. Reuters stands by their story and Mr. Rodriguez stands by his comments. You may reach Mr. Christian Oliver at the following e-mail address if you want to take this up with him. "christian.oliver"

You are incorrect in your statement of fact.

3: How could a Reuters reporter write something based on one source, who is not even the primary contact person?

Mr. Rodriguez is the contact person at the MinAmb for the approval of the ESIA.

You are incorrect in you statement of fact.

4: Once the permit is issued, it is operational and whoever owns Crystallex and its deposits is not required to go through permitting again. The buyout happens after the permit. Everyone knows this, to present it otherwise is to twist the truth.

It is Mr. Thompson, Crystallex's CEO who made the comment about starting all over again, not I. It is also my understanding that Crystallex will have to submit anther ESIA for approval if they do move ahead with their expansion plans. If you have any accurate and concrete information suggesting that the deposits would not require further permitting, I hope you write them in reply to me. If you are unable to provide this information then I and all other readers can conclude that your comment that a buyout happens after the EISA approval but is precluded from happening before it is wrong.

You are incorrect in your statement of fact.

5: Obviously GRZ's permit was not delayed, but for GRZ to be 'operational' they rely on common investments from KRY including infrastructure (airport etc.), so it looks like GRZ is not such a great investment without KRY also being permitted.


In my research and investigations for this article, I have confirmed that the Las Brisas mine can go ahead even if the Las Cristinas mine is stalled. As I reported, Mr. Thompson's comment was wrong. Please provide contrary information if you have it. I will even accept a current denial from Crystallex if you can get it as I have been unable to. You may reach them at info@crystallex.com

6: It has already been shown in the SEC filings that KRY does have a plan to deal with cyanide. Moreover, the copper was never part of the plan and will never be until it is economic to extract it. This was settled with MIBAM.

Once again, the comments about cyanide or copper production were not mine. They came from Mr. Rodriguez. I did not write that Crystallex had no plans for cyanide treatment but having plans does not mean that those plans meet with the approval of the MinAmb. Mr. Rodriguez is saying that they do not.

In your neck of the backwoods, it may be accepted practice to libel someone's character or damage their reputation for your own gain but according to the laws of this country, it is illegal to do so.

Please respond to my concerns above, issue an apology if you are unable to provide concrete information or list the name of your legal representitive so that we may contact them.

Best regards,

JLB]]>