I'm OK with the language, but I want to make sure everyone is OK on the  concept.
When we left this (unless there have been subsequent conversations  with ECS that I wasn't a part of) we rejected Courtney's proposal to reduce  our up front payment by $500,000.
He was to come back and propose a monthly  quantity of gas to be paid over the term of the contract that would equate to  the $500,000, but I don't recall that we agreed to it.
Did we intend to  leave the issue open for more horsetrading on the amount of a haircut ECS  should take or were we content to cover ECS at 100 cents on the dollar?
I am  advised that the Btu number in the letter would allow ECS to get the full  $500,000 of up front value.
Rod and Steve--this one is up to you and I think its totally a question of

Supplement to Gas Letter
I'm OK with the language, but I want to make sure everyone is OK on the concept.
When we left this (unless there have been subsequent conversations with ECS that I wasn't a part of) we rejected Courtney's proposal to reduce our up front payment by <CUR><NUMBER>.
He was to come back and propose a monthly quantity of gas to be paid over the term of the contract that would equate to the <CUR><NUMBER>, but I don't recall that we agreed to it.
Did we intend to leave the issue open for more horsetrading on the amount of a haircut ECS should take or were we content to cover ECS at <NUMBER> cents on the dollar?
I am advised that the Btu number in the letter would allow ECS to get the full <CUR><NUMBER> of up front value.
Rod and Steve--this one is up to you and I think its totally a question of
rejected courtney proposal reduce recall agreed gas paid term horsetrading haircut concept left content cover cents dollar ecs cur number unless subsequent conversations