RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 12:06:27 -0400
- Cc: "2DOW2tf" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcRDOgoZSWsppQWLSBO1Ted9N/WWkwAATixQ
- Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Revised draft
Another alternative would simply be to put a period after "exploration."
The specific questions could be left to sec. 3.5.
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM
To: Steve Metalitz
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
I'm hoping others will have an opportunity to review Steve's changes
Steve: one thing I notice is that your proposed changes to the tiered
access provision seems to make even further exploration dependent on
resolving viability, financial feasability, etc. I'm not sure if that's
the intent, but that's how it reads right now.
On May 26, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> Attached please find suggested edits to sec. 1.4 to bring this summary
> closer into line with the content of the recommendations in sec. 3.3
> (local law) and 3.5 (tiered access).
> Steve Metalitz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:57 PM
> To: '2DOW2tf'
> Subject: [dow2tf] Revised draft
> Hi all:
> Sorry to send out another draft, but Glen was kind enough to provide
> me with most of the links listed in the documents. I've added them,
> and in the process moved just about all links into footnotes. I
> imagine in the HTML version of the document, they'll simply become
> This version of the document is also relative to last week's document,
> so if you haven't yet looked at the version from last night, don't
> bother. This tracks changes included in that document as well.
> <TF 2 sec 1.4 redline sjm 052604.doc>