Chaser: "Therefore: The work done by RPA is inadequately adequate to determine the Minerals Resources, since they do not have the detail work done by KRY. Hence, the need for RPA to cover their rear-end by including the above disclaimer."

Just so all who read this are clear. This is an opinion from Chaser (who apparently has no mining expertise and likely doesn't know the difference between resources and reserves). There is nothing in the report that says that, nothing that even remotely suggests that Crystallex' data is wanted let alone required.

Anyway, at least you took the time to find (and misrepresent) the report so in that spirit of constructive criticism:

1. You are wrong in your conclusions regarding both your points "a." and "b.". I could explain in detail why but you won't accept my view so perhaps someone else who understands technical reports will explain it. I know several here who (rarely post now and) understand this report.

2. If Crystallex' technical data were now made available I'm not sure it would benefit the project (which has largely been stalled since March waiting for permits...been there, done that). No one as far as I know is actively seeking it. The current plans do not need nor include any information from Crystallex. Contact investor relations at GRZ and ask them.