HIR
NUGATORY SUMS).
4. THE MEETING WENT ON THE FACE OF IT WELL. WHILE WE DID NOT ENCOURAGE KESCO TO PROPOSE WHAT SHOULD BE IN LIPPITT'S COVERING
LETTER (MY INDUS 137, PARA.8), IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WILL)
BE A COMBINATION OF LIPPITT'S MESSAGE OF 29 MAY ON UNITS 3 AND 4, HIS LETTER OF 21 SEPTEMBER ON THE DEVICE, AND HIS LETTER OF 15 DECEMBER 1977 COVERING THE LETTER OF INTENT ON UNITS 1 AND 2.
5. WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A SLIGHT REDRAFT OF THE LETTER OF INTENT, WHICH WHILE NEITHER SIDE COULD COMMIT THEMSELVES TO IT WE ALL FELT MET THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF EACH SIDE. CLP JUDGED IT PRUDENT TO CHECK IT WITH KADCORIE AND ESSO BEFORE WE TRIED IT CN ECGD OR THEY ON KESCO (ESSO). WE SHALL THEREFORE TELEX AN ACCURATE TEXT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS, FOR CONSIDERATION WITH ECGD. HOWEVER, THE MAJOR CHANGES INVOLVE
(A) REMOVING 31 MAY OR SUCH LATER DATE.......
FROM THE STATEMENT OF INTENT, (PARA,1) AND PUTTING IT AT THE END OF THE LETTER AS THE VALIDITY OF THE LETTER AS A WHOLE (TO GO SOME WAY TO MEETING THE POINT THAT KESCO QUITE SIMPLY DO NOT AT PRESENT INTEND ANYTHING BY 31 MAY) #
(B) PLACING CONDITIONS 2(1) AND 2(11) BEFORE THE STATEMENT OF INTENT (1.E **SUBJECT TO......IT IS OUR INTENT.... **) :
(C)
DROPPING CONDITION 2(111) (SINCE IT COULD BE COUNTER- PRODUCTIVE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, ESSO PUT NO MORE MONEY INTO KESCO BUT KESCO STILL UNDERTAKES THE DEVELOPMENT (AS IS QUITE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDS FROM ELSEWHERE), OR IF CLP THROUGH A NEW OR EXISTING SUBSIDIARY CHOOSES TO DO SO (IN WHICH CASE WHILE SECURITY 13 RECOGNISED TO BE A POSSIBLE PROBLEM AND WOULD BE COVERED BY 2(1) WE SHOULD NOT WISH THE BASE DATE TO BE LOST,
$
(D) A RE-WORKING OF PARAGRAPH 3 TO RECOGNISE THAT IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR WORK TO BE DONE, AND THAT IF IT IS GEC WILL SUBMIT A SCHEDULE FOR APPROVAL. THEREAFTER INDIVIDUAL MAJOR ITEMS TO BE APPROVED AS IN PRESENT TEXT. (THIS MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE TRUE STATE OF THINGS, BUT DOES NOT REMOVE THE FORMAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARAGRAPH). KESCO'S SECURITY AGAINST EXPENSE WOULD BE IN FAILING TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE IF AS IS MOST UNLIKELY IT WERE PROPOSED THAT ONE BE PUT FORWARD AS WELL AS IN NOT APPROVING ITEMS. THE MAXIMUM SUM IN PARA.4(A CAN THEREFORE DE DROPPED (BELT AND BRACES BEING SUFFICIENT).
(E)
THE NEW SENTENCE OR VALUITY OF THE LETTER TO READA