obl commences legal action , page-9

Iona and PC43,

If I remember correctly PC, you made mention of the Acacia sandstone not being tested in Pictor-2 when it was drilled. I think you said Pictor-2 hit TD in the shallower Nita limestone.

However, the Acacia sandstone contained oil in Pictor-1 and therefore the rationale is that the Acacia needs to be tested at a better location. PC, is that the way I should have interpreted your comments from back in early July on the ARQ thread?

Iona I think you are the 2nd most critical commentator of ARQ on HC (myself being the most critical, not that I say some of the things I think as I don't really want to end up in some courthouse explaining my opinions).

From experience people don't generally go to court at the drop of a hat unless they have a long and vexatious history of litigation and then of course they use the courts as a tool and up everyone for little or no reason.

People by and large take legal action when they perceive that they have been wronged or they see it as the only avenue to protect themselves and their interests.

Either of you have any thoughts on my comments?

MI