Last week when Bloomberg first reported erroneously that Crystallex received the permit I decided to send the sender an email looking for an explanation why. I did get a response and for what it is worth here is his response:
From: sbodzin@bloomberg.net [
mailto:sbodzin@bloomberg.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 7:17 AM
To: xxxx@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re:Recent Article on Crystallex
I ran an earlier story saying Correo del Caroni had reported that KRY had the permit. That story didn't go to the Internet. The second story, correcting the record, did. Sorry for any confusion. As far as your second paragraph o questions, I don't have any special knowledge. Just keeping an eye on things like you. Have a good day,
Steven
----- Original Message -----
From: xxxx <xxxx@telusplanet.net>
At: 3/02 13:28:48
Hi Steve,
I am curious with your recent comments on the permit status specific to Crystallex and why you felt the need to state that Crystallex received their permit. Did you hear that they received their permit and felt it was from a credible course? Or was it just a plain faux pas that just required a correction to what was originally published?
Are you hearing any rumblings that the permit is eminent and that something is in the works and that one could expect a permit soon? Can you comment on why it has taken so long to get a permit and would it not help the people surrounding the project to get this underway? Do you see any evidence that any permits are progressing with any other company?
Appreciate your response.
Thanks
xxxx
