Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : 25,740' WINFIELD RANCH JV PARTNERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harry who wrote (1203)	5/15/1999 4:07:00 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1326

Harry, Based on my understanding of contracts - what we really need to know is what is in the contract. What were the stated warranties? What were the limitations of liability? Was there fraud? etc. These are the things that matter. If Weatherford has good terms and conditions their liability will be limited. In that case only fraud would open things up. I personally feel the law suit is BS. If the demands are unreasonable the thing will go on forever in court with appeals. Bob

To: Harry who wrote (1203)	5/15/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: Don Richards	Respond to of 1326

Here's one view re: <<Where do we REALLY stand?>> Well,FWIW,this has been referred to as the winfield "death camp"!!!..,by another threadster!..Perhaps that says it all!! Actually,i asked myself some hard questions awhile back about this whole situation,(did not like the answers),and chose to move on...However,that was just a personal decision.But what really did me in was the splits they had on the Devonian/Atoka formation.(Even though it never proved out,it really tikked me off). I still visit here and will try to keep following the play.If i came across any relevant info.,i will share it.Also,if things get worked out with the lawsuit,I may very well be back in!..lp