cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Sarah Raper <s.raper@uea.ac.uk>
date: 25 Jul 1997 21:44:26 -0600
from: Tom Wigley <Tom_Wigley@qgate.ucar.edu>
subject: Battelle & US DOE
to: Janice Darch <j.darch@uea.ac.uk>

Dear Janice,

With regard to your message of July 18; "I'll be back to you once Mike and
Phil have had a chance to discuss it." ...

There is nothing to discuss.  There is no contract or formal arrangement with
CRU for Battelle Part 2.  The money is mine to do with as I decide, and I have
decided to spend it here.  If I had given part of this to CRU, it would have
been just that --- a gift.

For US DOE, CRU has both a personal and contractual commitment to give some
money to me.  Not only that, CRU has failed to fulfill this obligation for the
previous two years of the US DOE contract --- something I find quite annoying.
 By not demanding this money, I am essentially *giving* a considerable sum to
CRU.  I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but obviously I do.

When I said in my last email that there were no winners or losers with this
arrangement, I was wrong.  CRU is the winner and I am the loser.

Regarding the issue of whether the work will be done, this is of no concern to
CRU for the Battelle work.  For US DOE, it is an issue that Phil, as the
in-house PI, should be concerned about.  As far as I can see, however, there
is no problem here.  As always, CRU has done far more per $ that any other US
DOE grant recipient.

Cheers,
Tom