date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:27:22 BST
from: Janice Darch <J.Darch@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Battelle & US DOE (fwd)
to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk

Mike and Phil, Are you happy with this arrangem,ent? It seems fine to me and avoids alot of hassle.
Janice
Forwarded Message:
From: Tom Wigley <Tom_Wigley@qgate.ucar.edu>
Date: 17 Jul 1997 23:51:07 -0600
Subject: Battelle & US DOE
To: Janice Darch <j.darch@uea.ac.uk>
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>,
     Sarah Raper <s.raper@uea.ac.uk>

Dear Janice,

Here is the situation regarding US DOE and Battelle.  In US DOE, there is
money earmarked for me.  In a current Battelle contract that I have, there is
money for CRU.  This is Part 2 of an earlier Battelle contract.

CRU actually did get money under Battelle Part 1, and Mike Hulme should have
been aware of the situation under Part 2.  However, this is irrelevant.  As it
happens, CRU has done nothing under Part 2---I've done all the work myself.

What I plan to do now (a change from my earlier idea) is to use the notional
CRU money in Battelle Part 2 for me, and leave the notional TMLW money in US
DOE in CRU.  The amounts are similar, so there are no winners and no losers. 
Logistically, this is much easier---no paperwork whatsoever!  If you agree we
will cancel our request for a sub-contract with CRU for the Battelle work.

The bottom line is that you can use the TMLW money in US DOE for whatever is
advantageous to CRU (within the terms of reference of the proposal).  

Cheers,
Tom


________________________________
Dr J P Darch
j.darch@uea.ac.uk
Research Administrator, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1603 592994   Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507784/507719



