"Another thing I forgot to mention while talking to Dan Leckrone, was his enthusiasm, the meeting had ended, and as he was explaining the potential future for PTSC, he wanted to let everyone know that there was something cooking, unfortunately with the meeting over and the sound equipment, he could not access the microphone, so he explained to three of us."

Isn't it just a little troubling that Dan Leckrone is the one talking to PTSC shareholders about the future of PTSC, and not the PTSC BOD which wound up the meeting and Q&A without allowing for any business-related Q&A, which was probably a smart move, ending on what I think can only be considered the high of Jim Otteson's excellent presentation and Q&A? I did find it amusing that Jim managed to work in a sentence that included "... it's not a slam dunk...".

Others have posted about M&A down the road. The only move that makes sense to me is for the two owners of MMP to come together for the final stretch but quite how that would work is beyond me. Other than 50% of MMP and other possible tax-related financial benefits I don't see what PTSC brings to the table - certainly no additional business assets or acumen. TPL has other patent ownership assets. Has anyone thought through possible scenarios? I think it is fair to say that the present PTSC BOD has not shown much ability to successfully grow shareholder value by acquisition.

Also, if Leckrone "wanted to let everyone know that there was something cooking" (of which other PTSC shareholders are unaware) would that make him party to inside knowledge? Not that he hasn't been all long.

As a reminder, the actual "legal" meeting was over after about 10 minutes, once the voting formalities completed and Cliff correctly closed that part, so the Jim Otteson (invited by the BOD and what an excellent move that was!) and Leckrone sessions were not part of the formal meeting.