the services that had been provided to Tana and necessary in preparation of the reserves report.
On August 31, 2006, Tana and Capco closed the transaction and employed Ryder to prepare a projection reserves report on the 13 properties as of December 31, 2006. According to Capco, Ryder's report was "significantly and materially less than [the figures] reflected in the earlier April 1, 2006, report." Capco complains that even after taking into account intervening production and forecast declines, the "proved reserves" were significantly below those upon which it relied on August 31. As a result of the shortfall, Capco filed for bankruptcy and initiated this adversary proceeding.

III. CAPCO'S ASSERTIONSTANA AND RYDER'S RESPONSES

A. Capco's Contentions
In three points of error, Capco contends that the bankruptcy court erred: (1) when it foundExisted Between Capco and Ryder
In its first point of error, Capco argues that it could and did in fact, rely upon the professional services, information and opinions, rendered by Ryder at the June 9, 2006, meeting. It contends that it had a right to rely upon Ryder's information and opinions because Ryder was paid for the services rendered. Capco points out that even Ryder described its presentation"[F]or services rendered in connection with the review of Capco Energy's Reserves and the Tana acquisition reserves with Union Bank of California." Hence, Ryder asserts that a professional relationship and contract for professional services existed between Capco and Ryder.
Internally, under this point, Capco argues: that the bankruptcy court misstated the facts concerning the date when the purchase of the Tana properties was