I can see the light is finally starting to go off in your head! Thank goodness!
Of course I read that CAP. I've read it for at least the last couple of years. Perhaps you haven't read the filings. If so, you might have noticed that there is not only a CAP on the amount paid to TPL, but also a CAP on the max amount in the working capital fund. That CAP is set at $8M, or at least was set at that as of the close of the last quarter.
However, we learned that the working capital fund CAP has been substantially increased! By how much, we don't know. But if that CAP has been increased, it stands to reason that it was to cover additional costs and to "fund" the MMP licensing efforts. It stands to reason that if one CAP was increased, the other was also, so it's likely that the $1M cap per quarter to TPL could likely have been SUBTANTIALLY INCREASED as well, doesn't it?
Additionally, in past quarters, PDS paid LESS than the $1M allowed. For example, for the six months ending Nov 2009, PDS paid $1M ($500K per quarter). For the 3 months ending August 2010, they paid $0. So it seems that of late at least, the payments to TPL have been on the lower to lowest end of the range. If it is formulaic based as presented, presumably, the SUBSTANTIAL increase, will result in PDS paying TPL in the higher end of the range going forward.
I agree that it's a cash flow arrangement. THAT'S MY POINT!!! It's cash flowing to TPL! You argue, but then end up supporting my point. And yet you whistle past the grave yard like there's nothing wrong.
