Doesn't an NDA require both sides to keep their mouths shut on a deal? If that's the case, aren't JB and BG both legally tongue tied and wouldn't that present a certain logic behind the lawsuits... a possibly tantalizing but invisible (to us) drilling deal on the table that neither man can really expound upon, i.e. exact $amt., specific claims' boundaries, the principal, etc.?  JB can play around the edges on the outside and BG can tightrope it on the inside til it solidifies?