Recon Africa Vs IVZ, page-124

I personally have my concerns about RECO:
1. Initially they said they were looking for oil in unconventional reservoirs (which would require fracking) - but fracking is not legally permitted by the Namibian government + the obvious water and environmental concerns surrounding fracking.
2. So they drilled "blind" without 2D seismics and then said they found "clear evidence of a working conventional petroleum system in the Kavango Basin" https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/reconafrica-s-first-of-three-wells-confirms-a-working-petroleum-system-in-the-kavango-basin-namibia-865139500.html the word "conventional" is important because they are not allowed to frack
3. Now they have planned to do 2D seismics. Why now, after a few drill holes have been "successful"? If they were looking for "conventional" reservoir systems, why would they not do 2D seismics FIRST, for trap identification and also for well positioning? Instead they drilled holes "blind".

If the short-seller report is false then RECO should sue, but that would require disclosure and I think the short-seller feels they are on strong legal ground here to issue such a devastating report.

Someone correct me if I am wrong in any of the above, including any RECO holders. I am human and willing to accept I may have made a mistake, but please tell me what is specifically wrong with any of the above summary, I am happy to be educated on this matter, and apologies in advance if I have mis-stated anything.