Sorry, I lost track of the versions. Here are my two questions/comments:

What are we gaining or losing by putting a drop dead date of March 2004?

On 2.11, I think relinquishing them from "damage" is broader than it needs to 
be, since the contract language is "risk of loss".  However, if the deal is 
that they are off the hook for cosmetic deterioration during storage, I think 
that can be addressed specifically in the change order.

Kay


From: Brian D Barto@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 02/22/2001 03:40 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Renee Alfaro/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 

Subject: Re: BlueDog Change Order #2, Rev 6

Kay:
We are sill awaiting your approval to proceed with this revision of CO 2 
(Storage of Unit 1) for Blue Dog.  Your last comment that I did not get GE to 
agree to was the change to their responsibility for cosmetic deterioration 
during storage.  They believe that any cosmetic deteriation in storage would 
be viewed as their fault, therefore there was no real distinction of fault.  
They want to be off the hook for normal deterioration that occurs during our 
storage in their storage facility.

PS.  Storage has begun.
----- Forwarded by Brian D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 02/22/2001 03:33 PM 
-----

	Brian D Barto
	02/07/2001 05:14 PM
		 
		 To: Renee Alfaro/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: BlueDog Change Order #2, Rev 6


----- Forwarded by Brian D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 02/07/2001 05:13 PM 
-----

	Brian D Barto
	02/07/2001 04:50 PM
		
		 To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: BlueDog Change Order #2, Rev 6



That was incredibly fast.