Posted On: 06/02/2015 12:08:53 PM
Post# of 39368
You are correct.
Another source saying there was traces of oil was Treaty's Mudlogger Consultant. But without hard evidence it is hears say.
Hopefully they kept something.
Another thing is Cho is quoted as saying something like
The SEC says NO OIL. Period.
And if there was absolutely 110 % no oil why did The GOB authorize Treaty to continue drilling SJ # 2 then begin SJ # 3 to determine the size of it.
And this after the court told Princess to halt drilling and PM Barrows challenged the court.
Too many variables.
Another source saying there was traces of oil was Treaty's Mudlogger Consultant. But without hard evidence it is hears say.
Hopefully they kept something.
Another thing is Cho is quoted as saying something like
Quote:it leaves the possibility for small quantities.
stated there was no live oil in LARGE quantity
The SEC says NO OIL. Period.
And if there was absolutely 110 % no oil why did The GOB authorize Treaty to continue drilling SJ # 2 then begin SJ # 3 to determine the size of it.
And this after the court told Princess to halt drilling and PM Barrows challenged the court.
Too many variables.
(0)
(0)
I expose those connected to Hedge Funds and Illegal NSS to help protect penny stocks from their vicious attacks trying to BK the company for the benefit of HEDGE FUNDS. I've received NO compensation in any form for such, except for a few thank yous...
