RE: Oneok

I just spoke to Terry regarding the September dispute. He is willing to spilt the difference if we can come up with an appropriate letter agreement . He would like us to draft a letter stating that both parties are agreeing to a negotiated volume/dollar amount. The language should state that both parties are not setting a precedence and are not waiving any existing rights. The volume/dollar amount is not based on anything specific. Please do not send dispute notice response. I believe that we will have a deal.

He is also mentioned that we should see their response to the test protocol tomorrow.

They received the CO2 response and it was what he expected. They are currently claiming Force Majuere on their Praxair contract, but have not been sued yet. They were pleased with the fact that we are posting a quality reminder and are feeling better about their chances of a commercial solution with CIG.

They are also planning to send us some kind of communication (demand letter) on EPPI.

Sorry for the abbreviated note. If you have questions, call me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dornan, Dari
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:20 PM
To: Porter, J. Gregory; Miller, Mary Kay; Neubauer, Dave; Ringblom, Kathy; Graham, Charlie; Darveaux, Mary; Cessac, Kenneth; Thompson, Charlie; Woodson, Harry; Blair, Lynn; Corman, Shelley; Anderson, Gary E.; Davis, Britt
Subject: Oneok Dispute Notice Response

Attached please find a revised draft of the response. It must be mailed on December 28 unless Dave is able to reach an alternative agreement with Oneok. Thanks, Dari

<< File: Oneok Dispute Notice Response.doc <<