Rod, Here is a brief update for Stan's staff meeting.  Hope you won't mind 
giving a summary, if appropriate.

Thanks, JNG

MOPS Disposition:  Bill Malmquist (Williams Field Services) canceled the 
meeting that had been scheduled for Wednesday of last week with James 
Harvey.  I will follow-up with James to see what reasons were given, but 
obviously this is another indication of the general lack of enthusiasm the 
other MOPS owners have for dealing with our ROFR issue.  The Williams 
business segment that has responsibility for MOPS, reports up through Steve 
Malcolm in Tulsa.  I have not dealt with this new organization in the past, 
but I will begin making contact "up the ladder".  If Stan knows any of the 
top guys and wouldn't mind making a contact, it might be helpful.  Meantime, 
if I make any progress I'll get word to Stan.  

Here is the applicable Williams organization chart for reference:

 Keith Bailey

 Steve Malcolm - President, Williams Energy Services which includes 
gathering, processing, and trading/marketing
 [Malcolm is organizationally equivalent to Cuba Waddlington].

 Steve Springer - Sr VP Gathering & Processing

 Allen Armstrong - VP 

 Dan McVay - Director

 Bill Malmquist - Manager 

  NOTE:  Malcolm, Springer, and Armstrong are located in Tulsa. 

Alaska/Canada Pipeline - trip to Calgary:

We attended a meeting in Calgary hosted by Purvin & Gertz with many of the 
stakeholders for the Alaskan/Canadian gas pipeline project in attendance.  
This rather large industry group (including NBP and GPG) has commissioned 
Purvin and Gertz to develop a detailed comparison of cost, schedule, and 
producer netback for various pipeline solutions.  There seems to be only two 
pipeline alternatives being seriously considered: 
 1) the original ANGST route which would run along the existing TAPS oil line 
and then along the ALCAN highway into the Yukon territory and BC; and 
 2) the proposed "over the top route" that would run offshore Alaska in the 
Beaufort Sea and then up the McKenzie River valley down into Alberta.  

No alliances or partner groups have really formed as yet.  It seems that most 
are also conducting their own evaluation, and are waiting for clearer 
definition before declaring their intentions.  Of course, Foothills Pipeline 
is convinced that the ANGST route is the only one that makes sense and is 
working hard to illustrate the benefits of the previously 
approved/certificated route.  Interestingly, Foothills is not a sponsor of 
the P&G study, 

We have communicated our interest in the project to Foothills, BP Amoco, 
Phillips, and even Williams Pipeline.  In addition, I have scheduled a 
meeting this Friday to discuss the project with Exxon-Mobil.