Board's deliberations on the matters to be discussed during the closed portion may be properly closed to public observation.

Noting that the Board had discussed its open meeting policy at the February 17, 1983 Board meeting, Mr. Monks inquired if a formal report would be prepared on this subject in time for the April 14 meeting of the Board of Directors. Mr. Cox replied in the affirmative. Mr. Monks then stated that` all proceedings of the Board of Directors which conceivably may be conducted in public should be so conducted. He said that the Corporation is doing the public's business, and that there is only a minimum of information, such as trade secrets, which should not be disclosed to the public. Referring to today's meeting, Mr. Monks said that he personally would have held the maturity and strength reviews in the open session, although he believed that a report on the status of negotiations should always be made in closed session. He said that he was not certain how he would handle consideration of a project-specific proposal. He concluded that in his view, consideration of the second coal solicitation could have been conducted in public.

Chairman Noble stated that he is in favor of making public as much of the proceedings of the Board of Directors as possible; however, he noted that he was concerned by the prospect of an inadvertent disclosure of confidential information. He noted that such a disclosure might be easily made as a result of an inadvertent question posed by a member of the Board. Mr. Monks suggested that, in order to insure against the inadvertent release of confidential information, Board members could defer discussion of specific questions regarding confidential matters to the closed session.

Chairman Noble noted that it is the policy of the Corporation to make Board minutes available shortly after each Board meeting. Mr. Cox stated that the minutes are made available after approval by the members of the Board. Chairman Noble then asked Mr. Cox for the policy of the Corporation regarding a review at six month intervals of confidential Board minutes to determine if they remain confidential. Mr. Cox said that the Energy Security Act does not require the Corporation periodically to review confidential Board materials; however, it would be possible to make a policy determination concerning this question.

On a motion duly made by Mr. Monks and seconded by Mr. Thompson, by a vote of 6-0 it was

RESOLVED, that the remaining portion of this meeting
consisting of Agenda Items X through XIV be, and it
hereby is, closed to public observation, it having
been determined by the Board of Directors in open
session that the discussion in open session of
maturity reviews and strength reviews of pending
projects (Items X and XI), the status of project
negotiations (Item XII), a report on a proposal for a
project-specific solicitation (Item XIII), and a
consideration of a second coal solicitation (Item
XIV), is likely to disclose confidential commercial
or financial information and matters the premature
disclosure of which would be likely to impede the
Corporation's ability to negotiate financial
assistance agreements, which matters may properly be
considered in closed session pursuant to section
116(f)(1) of the Energy Security Act.

The meeting was recessed at 12:40 p.m.

MINUTES OF THE CLOSED PORTION OF THE
MEETING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD

ANNEX LASI

That portion of the March 24, 1983 meeting of the Board of Directors of the United States Synthetic Fuels Corporation closed pursuant to a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted in open session, was called to order at 1:35 p.m., by Chairman Edward E. Noble in Room 537, New York Hilton Hotel, New York, New York. In addition to the Chairman, the following members of the Board were present:

John B. Carter, Jr.
Milton M. Masson, Jr.
Robert A. G. Monks
Victor A. Schroeder

Victor M. Thompson

The following officers and employees of the Corporation were also present:

Jimmie R. Bowden, Executive Vice President

Leonard C. Axelrod, Vice President-Technology and Engineering
Charles A. Cowan, Jr., Senior Vice President-Projects

Ralph L. Bayrer, Vice President-Projects

Edward F. Cox, General Counsel and Secretary

Dwight A. Ink, Vice President-Administration and Treasurer

S. Kenric Lessey, Jr., Inspector General

Darrel W. Lundquist, Vice President-Planning

Edward S. Miller, Vice President-Finance
Jeffrey A. Lipkin, Deputy General Counsel
Robert Gambino, Deputy Inspector General

Andrew P. Tashman, Assistant General Counsel

Jeanine L. Matte, Senior Attorney

Richard Shanklin, Project Officer

Frank Hill, Senior Financial Analyst

Graham Matthews, Director of Senate Relations

Donald Thibeau, Executive Assistant to the Chairman
Betty Nolan, Senior Policy Advisor

Judith Fox, Legal Assistant

Consideration of Third Solicitation Project Maturity Reviews

Mr. Cowan stated that staff had recommended that the Board drop the following projects from the Third Solicitation: MAPCO, Hampshire, Breckinridge, Wolf Den, and Big Horn. He said that the staff recommended that the following projects pass the maturity review: Paraho, Cottonwood Wash, World Energy, Iron City, Sunnyside, Kentucky Tar Sands, and Northern Peat. He noted that Beluga and Ohio I had withdrawn from the Third Solicitation and therefore would not be presented to the Board for

consideration.

Mr. Monks inquired why the Board had deferred action on the MAPCO project at the January 20 meeting of the Board of Directors. Mr. Cowan replied the MAPCO project was making a concerted effort to assemble its equity and its engineering effort at that time. He stated that now it has become apparent that the MAPCO project cannot possibly meet the Corporation's maturity requirements and, therefore, staff is recommending that it be dropped from further consideration in the Third Solicitation.

Mr. Masson suggested that the Board pass the Big Horn project in light of a letter that was sent by the project to the Board of Directors requesting a postponement. He observed that the Big Horn project reminded him of Geokinetics in that it is a small project, made up of small investors, requesting a small price support. He added that he believes the Corporation should give small projects every possible

opportunity. Mr. Bayrer replied that the additional information which the Big Horn project proposes to submit to the Corporation would not respond to the project's key maturity problems.

Mr. Schroeder stated that he would like to take exception to the staff recommendation to drop Hampshire and Breckinridge from the Third

Solicitation.

[Material Withheld: There ensued project-specific
discussions concerning the status of the Hampshire
and Breckinridge projects.]

Mr. Monks observed that a great deal of private capital has been invested in the Breckinridge project. He said that the Breckinridge project was "reality," that its development should be encouraged, and the project should not be dropped at this time. (Mr. Steven Gottlieb, Director of Environment, joined the meeting.)

Mr. Schroeder observed that Breckinridge was the only project of its type. He then agreed with Mr. Monks that action on the project should be deferred at this time. Chairman Noble concurred.

Chairman Noble then suggested that the Board continue its discussion concerning the Big Horn project. He asked if every Board member had received a letter from the Big Horn project and the Board members stated that they had.