Andrew, for what it's worth, I'll play psychologist and try to explain.
>>I spoke with Mark today and I'll preface what follows by saying it is my sense that he is not (or no longer) privy to the details of the contract and the negotiations, nor its actual status. <<
<What gave you that sense?>
Mainly two reasons. First, he was unable (not unwilling) to answer my questions regarding the matter of allowing TX modifications to RNTK technology and the related implications. This issue is obviously a part of the agreement (not to mention a confirmation that one exists) and would have been a subject of negotiations. As it was discussed openly at the SHM, it seemed to me to be a subject he would/should be able to address. I've talked with Mark at least 6 times in the last 2 months. This was the first time I raised a contract specific question and it was the first time he'd drawn a blank. (In and of itself it doesn't prove anything, but I did say it was my sense.) Second reason, his 60-90 days interpretation of the "relatively near future" statement surprised me. I questioned the wisdom of their using such a statement if a deal were not at hand. After some discussion on the issue, it occurred to me - Dennis would have originated the "relatively near future" statement - not Mark. Mark's been saying 60-90 days, crossing "T's" & dotting "I's", advanced stages since at least Feb. He's the IR guy, he's paid to play it safe, and he does. From RNTK's perspective, the best way to play it safe is if Mark doesn't know that which can get him or them in trouble. He's on the front line with us and if he let something slip there'd be hell to pay. I even joked with him saying, "Well, if the IR guy doesn't know what's going on I guess he can't screw up by letting something slip".
>>He was hopeful that it would occur prior to preparing for Aug 15 Quarterly filings. <<
<Hmmm, that would be sooner than the the 60-90 day time period. Seems more confusing than anything else.>
Exactly. Unless, of course, he really doesn't know. He's hopeful mostly because he's going to be real busy around that time working on the 2nd Q filings.
There you have it. Just my interpretation. Gee, I knew that BA in Psychology would be useful someday. <G>
Steve
PS. He also mentioned that the Shell, TX, Saudia Aramco deal, as well as TX's creation of Texaco Natural Gas Inc. (just for us??? - my thoughts) had tied up their legals for quite awhile, drawing their attention away from RNTK negotiations.
By the way, does anybody have current total Shares Outstanding and Float figures? Yahoo RNTK profile shows 31.6M & 26.8M. I'm guessing that's low. |
