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

db, nobody said these were the 'reasons', but more 'advantages'.

As for my statement, I stand by it. As it stands right now, if Exxon backs out of the Falcon JV, they give the land back to Falcon, and Falcon becomes the operator again.

If there is a unitization, and Exxon backs out of the Falcon/Exxon/MOL JV, but doesnt back out of the MOL/Exxon JV (they don't seem to have that 2nd point), then Exxon would still be the operator of the unit, and Falcon would be part of that unit.

In other words, I don't mean it will effect Exxons decision, I mean it will effect the results of the decision. It would 'ease the pain' of them backing out of the deal. The decision point then becomes 'less risky' for us as investors.

Lots of ifs, and not really that important right now, but it is just another advantage to unitization.