Mark:
This is the e-mail where DF objected to my proposed termination rights 
language that I would like to talk to you about so that we can come up with 
some language that I can use for those parties whom we have agreed have the 
right to terminate.  Could you please stop by when you have some time?
Carol
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 05/11/2000 10:24 AM -----

	David Forster@ENRON
	04/28/2000 06:05 PM
		
		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: kennecott

I don't like specifying a time period for termination. I remember we had a 
lengthy discussion on this with Mark Taylor. I seem to recall that the 
solution was that we would employ resonable efforts to process the 
termination request (please confirm with Mark). I don't think they will be 
happy with three days.

Dave



Carol St Clair@ECT
04/28/2000 01:35 PM
To: David Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: kennecott

David:
Here is a draft of the ETA amendment letter that we have been discussing with 
Kennecott.  It includes my proposed modifications to deal with giving them 
the termination right which I have highlighted.  The current ETA states that 
all notices become effective immediately.  I have inserted in my language a 3 
day period after we receive a termination notice before it becomes 
effective.  This creates a difference between Us and our Counterparty's since 
our termination notice would become effective immediately.  What do you 
think?  Do we need this 3 day period or are you okay with having their 
termination notice becoming effective on the date of our receipt?
Carol