RE:RE:Well 3Thanks for the response, Bertie. Those insights regarding the relevant geographic and relevant timeframes are very helpful. I have asked my friend to try to obtain a copy of the actual injunction, but in the meantime I found an announcement by an environmental protection organization describing it here: https://powaz.org/flagstaff-wins-injunction-against-dme/ Now I really hesitate to rely on the accuracy or completeness of such an account considering the source, but is anything I would expect it would actually the overstate the city's "victory". Based on the description, the injunction: 1. Only seems to apply to well site 1125 (not a broader area). 2. Does not prevent DME from operating the well, but imposes requirements on DME doing so - (a) acquire all permits, to specifically inlude an aquifer protection permit; (b) not inject any "fracking chemicals" or other waste water; and (c) provide a $5M bond for possible cleanup operations after its operations. Just speculating, perhaps the company did not seem this development "material" because of one or more of the following: A. A final judgment has not occurred until there is an outcome in the appeal. FWIW, I don't know anything about the specific judge, but Flagstaff/Coconino County is generally considered to bend to left/green side of things, but I was told that the AZ court of appeals judges are generally considered pretty moderate/conservative. B. The timeline for actual well production may be such that the injunction and the pending appeal process really don't really have an impact on the well' utilization unless DME actually loses the appeal. C. Because the injunction does not actually prohibit use of the well, perhaps DME can focus on other well sites while going through the process of satisfying the conditions before coming back to start production at this well site, without much disturbing the overall drill/production plan. But why then bother appealing? Perhaps this injunction is just a really poor ruling based on the law that could establish some bad precedent going forward for DME - and as a result DME may prefer to deal with it directly once-and-for-all by getting the bad ruling thrown out on appeal. D. Because no data has been published about well 3, its value may Beemer entirely speculative, and the impairment of a single site (of 70+) of speculative value may just not be considered material. I hope that further information and perspective is helpful. I can follow up if I am able to obtain better information. But I kind of hate thus far only being able to contribute info of a negative (even if ultimately immaterial) nature to this board. Apologies for that... FYI - I haven't sold a single share of DME since learning about this, nor do I intend to. This is one of two true ultra potential return (I.e.10-20x +) holdings in my portfolio. With the expected developments in the works over the next year or so, I don't plan on selling either anytime soon (for better or worse, I just don't have the time or guts to try to trade pops and drops and potentially miss a massive move that I know will eventually come if I just have the patience).