Paige - I can be more argumentative here but if it's not going to make any  difference in the outcome, I don't really see the point.
Let me know if you  disagree.
While a commodity forward contract which contains an asymmetrical default  provision clearly does not have the characteristic of net settlement, we do  not believe that Statement 133 is appropriately applied to any contract which  requires the making and taking of delivery of a physical commodity absent a  default, regardless of whether the default results in a termination payment  which may be payable to the defaulting party.
An event of default and  resulting termination of a commodity contract can have far reaching negative  implications for the defaulting party well beyond the terms of the contract  itself (e.g.
damage to reputation and credit, triggering of cross-defaults,  etc.
).

FAS 133 response

Paige - I can be more argumentative here but if it's not going to make any difference in the outcome, I don't really see the point.
Let me know if you disagree.
While a commodity forward contract which contains an asymmetrical default provision clearly does not have the characteristic of net settlement, we do not believe that Statement <NUMBER> is appropriately applied to any contract which requires the making and taking of delivery of a physical commodity absent a default, regardless of whether the default results in a termination payment which may be payable to the defaulting party.
An event of default and resulting termination of a commodity contract can have far reaching negative implications for the defaulting party well beyond the terms of the contract itself (e.g.
damage to reputation and credit, triggering of cross-defaults, etc.
).
going asymmetrical clearly does cross defaults negative implications statement number appropriately termination commodity contract reputation credit triggering taking delivery physical