Teut: Good analysis - thanks for the hard work. I agree with your underlying premise that the permit will be granted. A few things...

The press release specified that they had been advised by their Venezuelan counsel. Ostensibly that would be the same counsel that would have filed the appeal on KRY's behalf. It seems that they would not only know Venezuelan law, but would be in the best position to interpret its ramifications.

You say that "I have always felt no response on a legal issue to mean that the original decision still stands." Even if this was universally true, we do have a response. It may not deal with the issue formally, but legalistically it may be sufficient - not being versed in Venezuelan law I can't say for certain. There is a concept in the law called estoppel (there are many different kinds...), which essentially says that you can't ask the court to accept a position which is contradictory to your past words or actions. I don't know what the "formal letter" says, so I can't render an opinion.

The last point is that the Law of the Forests was enacted since the permit was denied. I would expect that if the activity was to be curtailed it would be pursuant to that law rather than the permit application. Once again I can't give an opinion because I don't understand the law as it applies to KRY. I emailed IR a few weeks ago asking if it had been reviewed by their attorneys, etc... but I still haven't gotten a response.