Midas, You want my opinion on that "publication"?

Read their response to the E-mail I sent them. My e-mail is at the bottom.

Ok. I'll give my opinion: Waste of time

Hi James,

Below is a rather typical letter we get every time we have an article on Crystallex. Clearly, it’s a very delicate issue for very many Crystallex shareholders because the Venezuelan mine seems to be just about the only thing Crystallex has going for it.

I’m not sure what, though, he wants us to correct in your article. It seems that the things he mentions are details and he feels that the article cast aspersions on Crystallex, which, I am not sure you meant to do and which we cannot really “correct”.

He does raise a stylistic issue about your article I have meant to mention to you a while ago – and this is meant purely as a suggestion, not to say that you did anything wrong in that or other articles. That is, you do have a tendency to use the words “claim” and “allege” an awful lot, when it would be much simpler and more neutral to simply say, X “said” Y instead of X “claimed” (or alleged) Y. Using claimed and alleged (or similar words) unnecessarily calls attention to the style of the article and detracts from its substance. I normally change those words in your articles, but in this case I guess I overlooked it.

Anyway, I probably should have warned you about writing on crystallex. Actually, if I had known you were going to make that the center of your article, I probably would have. I thought the focus was going to be on the mining ban. Anyway, no big deal – just to let you know for next time, there is probably no issue on Venezuela where we get scrutinized for accuracy as much as on the crystallex issue.

Take care,
Greg


On 6/27/08 11:11 PM, "RMBonger@aol.com" <RMBonger@aol.com> wrote:

Attention James Suggett.

Dear Mr. Suggett:

I appreciated reading your article dated June 27 under the title " Venezuela Halts Mining........"

It appears fairly clear you are not really very familiar with this issue

First of all, the so-called "sweeping restrictions" you fail to mention that a years old Presidential Decree allows mining in this particular part of the Imataca and that Mrs. Ortega seems to be totally isolated in her misplaced and law breaking efforts.

You continue to say, that permits may be granted "if the companies promise social investments and environmental reparations". These obligations as far as they concern Crystallex are part of the existing Mine Operating Agreement the Company has with the CVG and it has been confirmed by MinAmb that all conditions have been met. In fact MinAmb requested a performance bond and payment of certain taxes after which the permit would be granted. The bond was submitted and the taxes paid a year ago. They also approved the EIS a long time (more than a year) ago.
During the June 18 meeting KRY was requested to submit certain changes, which in my opinion are face saving cosmetics, primarily dealing with the restoration of the environmental damage and pollution caused by the illegal miners during years of Government apathy.

Your bias shines through, when you write that "Crystallex claimed to have obtained......"
This is casting unfair doubt on the credibility of the company. If you would pay a visit to their website, you will find an authorized translation of these Minutes right there. And there is nothing to justify the term that those minutes "alledgely" reveal. Just read the Minutes!

Another inaccuracy: Crystallex made ONE appeal, which was denied by a Director General with the note that a further appeal could be made to Minister Ortega, This appeal was filed but not denied. On the contrary. The Government instructed MinAmb to open discussions.

All in all a very questionable and slanted piece, worthy of some published corrections.

Yours,

Robert M. Bonger

Rob