Pious, they are trying to achieve four goals at the same time and they do not want the unitholders to pick and choose. That is the reason why it is confusing: They want to solve all this for once and in IMHO that is great!

MINERAL RIGHTS SALE -> Debt Reduction:
$135M proceeds
+ $55-60M of debt reduction in rest of 09
+ $50M in 2010 (lower cash flow for bad hedges)
= $240M against 804 borrowed
30% DEBT REDUCTION that should be sustainable, one year of waiting before the distribution reinstatement

ARREARAGES -> Rights Issue
* The number of subordinates bought and retired is basically the sane to the number of rights issued (that 0.35 has a reason)
* we will be paying for the subs with the proceeds of the right issue.
* Therefore NO DILUTION (whatever you estimated for distribution per unit is basically the same minus proceeds of mineral rights)

GROWTH -> Warrants
* They are planning to invest in a pipeline right through the middle of Haynesville from west to east in Texas to the Louisiana border.
* My take is that as soon prices get a little bit better they can use some project financing and retire the debt with the proceeds of the warrants

TRUST -> Backstops, puts and others
There are so many that is difficult to mention all
* We will be getting rid of the GP over time (50% now, 50% over time)
* Go-shop for mineral rights
* Backtstop for rights issue
* We have a Put to pay the proceeds of buying subs in units instead of cash
* 2 independent directors
* ...


Am I missing something?