Ok guys, you are not making sense here. some of the latest comments on unitization are

1. allow a partner like FO to cut further its costs (the Boogieman)

2. remove the 'risk' of ExxonMobil backing out of the deal (the Landman)

3. makes sense to treat Mako as one entity to allow for a proper development (kind of the average of various previous posts)

Numbers 1, 2, and 3 dont make sense at all. For #1, unitizatrion has nothing to do with cutting costs for Falcon, actually it could be quite the contrary, as participating in the development of a larger acreage will surely mean greater expenditures. For #2, it does not remove the risk of Exxon backing out of the deal at all. They still can, it will be a warm day in Siberia in January when a company like Exxon will let it self be trapped by a contract that they write. And for #3 it makes no sense at all to trat Mako as one unit if the intention is to allow for an orderly development. C'mon, guys, think about it, An oild field needs proper developement when a well in one property can tap oil from an adjacent property. A conventional gas field needs proper development when a well ..etc..same as oild in the preceeding parragraph. n unconventional gas field is under no such threat. An unconventional field well even after fraccing and becoming a producing well has such limited area of influence that to develope these plays the question often is, how close should be drill so we can get the most out of this bonaza.

The purpose of unitizing Mako is neither # 1, 2 or 3 above.

db