Quite a bit of negativity here about the potential outcome, specifically, the outcome involving lost profits. To begin with, lost profits are a staple of damages and proven in courts in all types of cases - tort, contract - every day, frequently by expert testimony. In our situation, kry will introduce expert testimony, which has already been developed and will be made public in February, as to the the cost of constructing a mine, how and why it could finance the mine, the cost of producing gold, the price of gold (yes, it can be proven by expert testimony; if not exactly what it would be in each of the 40 yr mine life, at least what the minimum price would be), the number of ounces of gold reserves at today's price of gold (and at estmated future gold prices), the number of ounces of gold resources (and whether resources rather than reserves can be considered as lost profits or are too speculative), the net lost profits, and so on. Since the rules of evidence at an arbitration (incl. a trial before an ICSID panel) are much more liberal than at a judicial proceeding, whether a court or jury trial, the tribunal will allow most expert testimeony and then consider its weight, as opposed to ruling on its admissability before hearing it in full, as done in a judicial (court or jury) proceding. The opposing party, Venezuela here, will object to much of the expert testimony testimony as speculative but the tribunal will nevertheless admit most expert testimony unless blatantly speculative and then consider how much weight to assign it. The court will then hear expert testimony from VZ. That testimony will not only include why the testimony of kry's experts is inaccurate but also why it is speculative. The tribunal will then consider all of this expert testimony from both sides and determine how much weigh to give it and whether lost profits have been proven and, if so, what amount.

One other thing, whether at a judical proceeding or at a administrative hearing before the ICSID. When a party has proven the first pat of its case, namely liability, and when it has proven it convincingly and shown the other party to have acted without justification, the tribunal is more likely to rule more favorably on the secod part of the case, namely, damages, than if the other party had some excuse or justifcation for its conduct. This is not a matter of law, just human nature, and borne true over the years.

For those of you who have doubts about lost profits and whether and how they can be proven, I would suggest doing a google search on "lost profits" and read some of the numerous articles. After all, it makes a huge difference if you see the upside of this case at 4 bil as opposed to 500 mil. In February when kry releases its experts' valuation to the tribunal, you will then be able to consider first hand what kry is alleging as damages and judge for yourself as to how speculative you believe it to be.