date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:27:22 BST from: Janice Darch 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 Date: 17 Jul 1997 23:51:07 -0600 Subject: Battelle & US DOE To: Janice Darch Cc: Mike Hulme , Phil Jones , Sarah Raper 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