Problem: BODY: Tanya: There's no short answer with these people! I think we are fine with their setoff language (part A only) because the NDP always has the option to permit setoff to other agreements between the parties as to amounts payable by the Payee to the Payer (where the Payer owes money under the ISDA to the Payee). So here's my recommendation: (1) Call your friend Andre and hear what he has to say. He has some kind of suggestion about Part (B) and limiting the NDP's payment to the DP to be based upon satisfaction that "nondisputed" amounts having been paid by the DP. Will he also raise the "other agreements" issue here? Not a clue. (2) If Cargill leaves part A in tact and we agree to change part B, I'M FINE. (I'm fine without part B, actually) (3) The potential problem is that Cargill and ENA view part A differently, right off the bat. I think Cargill is wrong because they don't read part A as applying to "other agreements between the parties". But Cargill proposed part A and it DOES apply to "other agreememts between the parties." I don't want to start off on the wrong foot so I'm sure I'll have to discuss this again with Marty. Thanks for your continued help. Sara
======
A: SUBJECT: Cargill, Incorporated - the final SETOFF discussion

Problem: BODY: Dear CLINT, It was nice talking to you today. Thank you for your willingness to help me. If you think of anyone that fits the qualifications or would be a good person to network with, please email their names and phone numbers. Naturally I will keep your name confidential. I hope to reciprocate some day. Please keep my e-business card on file for exciting career opportunities in the energy industry. Thanks again.
======
A: SUBJECT: MRI ENERGY

Problem: BODY: Attached is your morning research report for Friday, August 31, 2001. Please contact me if there are particular companies or sectors that you are interested in hearing from. (713-853-2407) Thank You,
======
A:
SUBJECT: fbsummary.pdf