Message-ID: <11354898.1075855013483.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:34:17 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: michelle.lokay@enron.com
Subject: Conoco notice
Cc: lindy.donoho@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: lindy.donoho@enron.com
X-From: Scott, Susan </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SSCOTT3>
X-To: Lokay, Michelle </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mlokay>
X-cc: Donoho, Lindy </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ldonoho>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \MLOKAY (Non-Privileged)\TW-Commercial Group
X-Origin: Lokay-M
X-FileName: MLOKAY (Non-Privileged).pst

Here is a notice letter to Conoco terminating Agreements 20835, 20747 and 20748.
Please be advised that under the 365-day notice provision of 20835, there is a chance that Conoco could take the position that we have given notice one day too late and the contract therefore does not terminate until the end of the first renewal term, or February 28, 2003.  Ditto for the other two agreements (except they could only claim the agreements are effective until the end of March 2002).  To be on the safe side, I've included an "acknowledged and agreed to" signature block (even though Conoco is not required to consent to a timely notice of termination).  Any questions -- let me know.

 