Guys, to end all arguments, I would suggest the following protocol which is 
similar to what was discussed at Columbia Lakes:

 a) P&P swaps and anything to do with the network strategy/assets in the 
paper sector in Canada and Mexico - Industrial Origination;
 b) Pure energy commodity positions and stand-alone energy assets (no 
outsourcing) for all industrial segments in Canada and Mexico - ECC or Enron 
Mexico; 
 c) Energy outsourcing for all industrial segments in Canada and Mexico - I 
would like Enron Canada and Enron Mexico to develop a written target list in 
which ECC, Enron Mexico and the Industrial Origination groups would work 
together to develop, sell and execute on the most profitable and value adding 
outsourcing product for the industrial customer in Canada and Mexico - ECC 
and Enron Mexico's understanding of the energy markets in Canada and Mexico 
coupled with the customer facing, product development and execution skills in 
Houston should provide a winning team.  I am asking for the three teams to 
clearly identify the outsourcing targets, lead sales and structuring people 
and the timing as far as starting discussion with each target customer 
(ASAP).  I would hope that the Mexican and Canadian teams would lead the 
sales process and the Houston team lead the structuring, customer facing and 
execution but I will let you decide the optimum mix.  Either way, I am 
expecting this target list completed and agreed to in the next two weeks for 
Canada and Mexico;
 and d) for Tembec I don't think it makes sense to change the deal team at 
this point; however, the US team will keep the Canadian team in the loop and 
if the products become non-outsourcing related the deal should be passed to 
ECC.

Regards
Delainey

 
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 08/03/2000 
12:31 PM ---------------------------


Rob Milnthorp
08/03/2000 09:46 AM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Tembec and US Originators

Dave, attached is some of the background correspondence in anticipation of 
our meeting with Brian Burnett.

Regards
Milnthorp
---------------------- Forwarded by Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT on 08/03/2000 09:29 
AM ---------------------------


Angela McCulloch
07/27/2000 11:07 AM
To: Rodney Malcolm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward Ondarza/HOU/ECT@ECT, James A 
Ajello/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Tembec and US Originators

Rodney, Edward, Jim - We've been over this issue a number of times and I 
thought we had reached resolution when we last met with Delainey.  My 
understanding with respect to coverage of Canadian Industrials is as follows:

1.) ENA to take lead on industrials that have facilities in both US and 
Canada and will co-ordinate coverage with ECC with respect to Canadian 
Facilities.

2.) ECC to take lead on industrials that have Canadian Facilities only.

3.) With respect to Canadian Pulp & Paper Industrials, ENA will cover Pulp & 
Paper Swaps and SPV structuring.  ECC will cover these industrials for all 
other Enron products (i.e. power, gas, services, etc.) Again, coverage needs 
to be co-ordinated.

Specific to Tembec, I share Paul's concerns on why ENA would send 2 people to 
talk to Tembec re: outsourcing when Tembec is across the hall from ECC, ECC 
has an established relationship, and Tembec is a Canadian Company with no US 
facilities.

It is my hope that we can resolve this amongst ourselves without having to 
get Dalainey involved. I would suggest a conference call next week.  In the 
interim, Paul will forward a CA to Tembec in contemplation of an outsourcing 
arrangement.

Regards,

Angela McCulloch for  Rob Milnthorp
Assistant to Rob Milnthorp
(403) 974-6738
---------------------- Forwarded by Angela McCulloch/CAL/ECT on 07/27/2000 
11:04 AM ---------------------------


Paul Devries
07/25/2000 01:30 PM
To: Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Tembec and US Originators

Rob, We just had a very good meeting with Tembec about Energy procurement and 
energy outsourcing.  While the meeting went well, I am very confused about 
the Enron team making the pitch to them.  My understanding is that the 
Canadian originators - particularly the Toronto team for Eastern Canadian 
companies will be responsible for everything except for pulp and paper swaps 
and to some extent, new SPV's.

In this instance,

1.  Tembec is a Canadian Company
2.  All their assets are in Canada
3.  Jan has been working with Tembec people in their largest facility
4.  We know the executive team at Tembec
5.  We clearly are very knowleadgable in all aspects of the Ontario energy 
market which is their focus right now
6.  We understand and are pitching the overall energy outsourcing arrangement 
similar to the US pitches

With this in mind, I am not sure why Kellie Metcalf and Bob Anderson flew up 
here (6 hours flight time there and back, $4,000 to $5,000 in flights and 
hotels) for a 4 hour meeting with Tembec.  Kelly was quite vocal in saying 
that this is a client they want to serve out of Houston.  I have stated to 
her that that does not make any sense in terms of efficiency and costs and 
knowledge of the market where Tembec's assets are.  Obviously, much of the 
technical engineering work would and should be done by the engineering team 
put together in the Industrial Services Group should a deal be struck.  
However, the commercial negotiations and marketing should be led by this 
office!!!

I thought this had been agreed to already.  We managed to piece up the 
meeting and deliver the "Enron" message, but going forward we need to have 
this resolved.


Cheers, Paul D