|
|
Enron Mail |
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.
|