That is not me son (imagine thinking I would do that just for...

Great first post, I agree. I take it as a win. He can't refute my points, and I have hard evidence on my side. Arguing with him is anti-intellectual, since he doesn't actually want to get to the point instead he just wants to throw out as many ambiguous conspiratorial posts as possible to hope something sticks.

That is not me son (imagine thinking I would do that just for you, you must think highly of yourself lol, also why would I need to, I am clearly winning the debate as Versask said, I am waiting for any refutation, so far ZERO). I know it's hard to swallow that another poster who presumably has some oil and gas knowledge sides with me. But how couldn't you, I backed up my points with evidence, and you were unable to refute the points. I take it as a win (that is how debates go). Also I admit when I am wrong, unlike someone else we know.

It also must be pretty embarrassing that it wasn't just me that saw your post: (72682958).

Not to mention you are now a flight risk for your assertion that muds contaminated the whole DST sample lol. You tried to suggest muds were mixed with the whole DST sample and when I pointed out this error you hid your post lol.. It told me you are clearly out of your depth when it comes to DST and you probably didn't know (until I told you) DST reverse circulation sample capture is an old standard tried and true method for wells that require artificial lift.