Great Plains Gasification Associates, A Partnership, Transco Coal Gas Company, A Partner Other Than The Tax Matters Partner - Page 18

                                        - 18 -                                        
          respect to the loan guarantee arrangement.  DOE was especially              
          concerned about how the project would be funded if the partners             
          terminated participation.  DOE lacked appropriated funds to                 
          complete the project on its own.  In October 1983, DOE Assistant            
          Secretary Jan Mares gave congressional testimony in which he                
          expressed DOE’s support for the price-support negotiations                  
          between the partnership and SFC as part of a loan restructuring             
          to ensure the partners’ continued participation in the project.             
          Discussions Concerning Terminating Participation in the Project             
               On the heels of this congressional testimony, SFC issued a             
          statement deferring any decision on price support assistance for            
          the project, citing concerns that additional legislation might be           
          required for that purpose.  The partners then advised DOE that,             
          because the partnership lacked assurance that SFC would negotiate           
          expeditiously for price guarantees, the partnership felt                    
          compelled to initiate procedures under the loan guarantee                   
          agreement to terminate the partners’ participation in the                   
               Consequently, on November 18, 1983, the partnership notified           
          DOE that the management committee was considering a determination           
          by the partners to terminate participation in the project.  Each            
          partner provided written notice to DOE, pursuant to the loan                
          documents, that it believed conditions existed permitting the               
          partner to vote to terminate participation in the project because           

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011