In BP Amoco's response, they obviously do not understand the relationships 
between the parties.  

(1)  There is no reason to amend the Seacrest easement with BP Amoco, as the 
224' of 12" pipeline installed by HPL has nothing to do with that easement or 
Seacrest, except that it is connected to HPL where the Seacrest easement 
stops.
(2)  HPL is not seeking an assignment of the Seacrest easement with BP Amoco, 
as HPL is not acquiring the Seacrest pipeline and has no interest in doing 
such at this point in time.
(3)  Because of our position on #1 and #2 above, we have no need to address 
their language.
(4)  HPL is not paying BP Amoco $50K, especially in light of their request 
under #5.
(5)  HPL is not altering it 1942 easement without some means of compensation 
(other easement right)  as was discussed in the last meeting.  I do not see 
anything in their response that addresses this issue.
(6)  HPL has nothing to do with the abandoned and unused portions of the 
Seacrest pipeline to Dow or Tejas, and certainly would not be in a legal 
position to represent such abandonment for something it does not own.
(7)  This is fine if we can reach settlement.
(8)  This is fine if we can reach settlement.

In light of the AEP transaction closing Friday, should Dan now become our 
point person on this and respond?