The settlement if Weatherfords seems to be more than...

The settlement if Weatherfords seems to be more than confidential.
On trying to review previous gdn annoucements on the litigation, I find that information seems to have been removed. Looking up gdn 30th may 2007 Notice of litigation you get a Drilling report and no mention of litigation. Strange, very strange. On a quick look around there it seems that most references to it have been removed.

If you're an investor, you may want to check this out.

From memory, because the testing of the lower zones was not complete because of salt build up due to retrieving of stuck pipe etc, Alkali Glutch & leadville, could not be tested.

All I could find on this is below.Other references seem to have been removed.



11/03/09
RELEASE OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT
The Paradox Basin #2 well will appraise both the discovered and the undiscovered GIIP and once
completed will extend the area attributed to the P90 estimate which was determined by using a 640
acre area around the Paradox Basin #1 discovery well. Successful tests in the Alkali Gulch or Leadville
Formation would move their respective GIIP into the discovered category. Paradox Basin #1 did not
successfully test the Alkali Gulch or Leadville Limestone. On completion of Paradox Basin #2 the
additional data recovered will enable the resource estimate for Paradox Basin #1 to re�]defined at the
Alkali Gulch and Leadville levels.


This has not been drilled, so it would seem GDN could not use this untested zone in their litigation.

The settlement may have been lower due to not testing this zone, but why remove information that has been in the public domain for almost 2 years?

I hope this in useful to someone. If not Give me the red thumb, regardless I will be watching to see and learn from this company. IMO DYOR