Subject: Re: FJ Alliance
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:20:00 -0700 (PDT)

Kevin,

Good point with Naheola Energy Island, but this may also apply to several 
other
energy projects that have occurred over the past two years.  The Kzoo Steam
Turbines, the RO Project at Marathon, etc...

Also Kevin and Richard given the fact that Naheola was not a wholly owned 
asset by
FJ (50%), but rather an LLP with another party (Utilico) - is this asset in 
any
way exempt from the Alliance Agreement from FJ's perspective?

Thanks

David

Kevin Hyatt wrote:

> Look a paragraph 3.5 in the Alliance.  It says once ECT submits an Energy
> Proposal, FJ has the option of (1) doing the project,, (2) consider a 
modified
> proposal, or (3) do nothing with the proposal.  The point is, FJ does NOT 
have
> the option of doing the project on their own (which they chose to do on
> restructuring the Naheola energy island).