I will respond to your major arguments.
"You point out that both Shell and Strata have bitumen in Bluesky and Gething clastic Cretaceous Formations, yet because some is in carbonate formation, they can't get anything. "
It says in the report that Shell's bitumen is in the upper clastic formation, and that ALMOST ALL of Strata's is in the lower carbonate formation. I never said, ever, that they "can't get anything," or that they won't be able to get the bitumen in the carbonate.
"So, are you saying Norwest intentionally misled us? I want to make sure, legally, we have them over the barrel. Since Shell is one of their clients, I guess I just assumed that they know what and where SHELL HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL, but apparently, you feel that they misled us. Interesting. The major engineering firm in the field has lied in a report, saying NPV of $1.2 billion. That they will get 55,000 barrels a day. That THE MOST LIKELY RECOVERABLE AMOUNT IS 580 MILLION barrels."
No, of course they did not lie, and I never said they lied. When they estimaed the NPV of $1.2 billion however, they assumed that Strata's carbonate would have the same extraction characteristics of clastic rock. In my opinion and the opinion of most, this is a very unconservative assumption. They say it in the report on page 28, "This means that existing pilot projects in clastic hosts, which have different physical
characteristics from carbonates, have to be used for performance prediction." Therefore the NPV of 1.2 billion is only valid if the bitumen comes out of the carbonate rock as easily as it comes out of the clastic rock.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
