Message-ID: <7566087.1075853233156.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:06:00 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.mara@enron.com
To: alan.comnes@enron.com, angela.schwarz@enron.com, beverly.aden@enron.com,
	bill.votaw@enron.com, brenda.barreda@enron.com,
	carol.moffett@enron.com, cathy.corbin@enron.com,
	chris.foster@enron.com, christina.liscano@enron.com,
	christopher.calger@enron.com, craig.sutter@enron.com,
	dan.leff@enron.com, debora.whitehead@enron.com,
	dennis.benevides@enron.com, don.black@enron.com,
	dorothy.youngblood@enron.com, douglas.huth@enron.com,
	edward.sacks@enron.com, eric.melvin@enron.com, erika.dupre@enron.com,
	evan.hughes@enron.com, fran.deltoro@enron.com,
	frank.vickers@enron.com, gayle.muench@enron.com,
	ginger.dernehl@enron.com, gordon.savage@enron.com,
	harold.buchanan@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com,
	iris.waser@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, james.lewis@enron.com,
	james.wright@enron.com, jeff.messina@enron.com,
	jeremy.blachman@enron.com, jess.hewitt@enron.com,
	joe.hartsoe@enron.com, karen.denne@enron.com, kathy.bass@enron.com,
	kathy.dodgen@enron.com, ken.gustafson@enron.com,
	kevin.hughes@enron.com, leasa.lopez@enron.com,
	leticia.botello@enron.com, mark.muller@enron.com,
	marsha.suggs@enron.com, marty.sunde@enron.com,
	meredith.eggleston@enron.com, michael.etringer@enron.com,
	michael.mann@enron.com, michelle.cisneros@enron.com,
	mike.smith@enron.com, mpalmer@enron.com, neil.bresnan@enron.com,
	neil.hong@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, paula.warren@enron.com,
	richard.zdunkewicz@enron.com, richard.leibert@enron.com,
	richard.shapiro@enron.com, rita.hennessy@enron.com,
	robert.badeer@enron.com, roger.yang@enron.com,
	rosalinda.tijerina@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com,
	sarah.novosel@enron.com, scott.gahn@enron.com,
	scott.stoness@enron.com, sharon.dick@enron.com, skean@enron.com,
	tanya.leslie@enron.com, tasha.lair@enron.com, ted.murphy@enron.com,
	terri.greenlee@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com,
	tony.spruiell@enron.com, vicki.sharp@enron.com,
	vladimir.gorny@enron.com, wanda.curry@enron.com,
	william.bradford@enron.com, mike.smith@enron.com,
	donna.fulton@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com,
	richard.sanders@enron.com, gfergus@brobeck.com,
	rcarroll@bracepatt.com, kathryn.corbally@enron.com,
	dwatkiss@bracepatt.com
Subject: Update -- Day 2 -- 2nd Session -- FERC CA Settlement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Susan J Mara
X-To: Alan Comnes, Angela Schwarz, Beverly Aden, Bill Votaw, Brenda Barreda, Carol Moffett, Cathy Corbin, Chris H Foster, Christina Liscano, Christopher F Calger, Craig H Sutter, Dan Leff, Debora Whitehead, Dennis Benevides, Don Black, Dorothy Youngblood, Douglas Huth, Edward Sacks, Eric Melvin, Erika Dupre, Evan Hughes, Fran Deltoro, Frank W Vickers, Gayle W Muench, Ginger Dernehl, Gordon Savage, Harold G Buchanan, Harry Kingerski, Iris Waser, James D Steffes, James W Lewis, James Wright, Jeff Messina, Jeremy Blachman, Jess Hewitt, Joe Hartsoe, Karen Denne, Kathy Bass, Kathy Dodgen, Ken Gustafson, Kevin Hughes, Leasa Lopez, Leticia Botello, Mark S Muller, Marsha Suggs, Marty Sunde, Meredith M Eggleston, Michael Etringer, Michael Mann, Michelle D Cisneros, Mike M Smith, mpalmer@enron.com, Neil Bresnan, Neil Hong, Paul Kaufman, Paula Warren, Richard L Zdunkewicz, Richard Leibert, Richard Shapiro, Rita Hennessy, Robert Badeer, Roger Yang, Rosalinda Tijerina, Sandra McCubbin, Sarah Novosel, Scott Gahn, Scott Stoness, Sharon Dick, skean@enron.com, Tanya Leslie, Tasha Lair, Ted Murphy, Terri Greenlee, Tim Belden, Tony Spruiell, Vicki Sharp, Vladimir Gorny, Wanda Curry, William S Bradford, Mike D Smith, Donna Fulton, Jeff Dasovich, Richard B Sanders, gfergus@brobeck.com, rcarroll@bracepatt.com, Kathryn Corbally, dwatkiss@bracepatt.com
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Iso_ pricecaps
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

In the


Message-ID: <23251651.1075858669935.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: gail.brownfeld@enron.com
To: b..sanders@enron.com
Subject: FW: E-mail  re damages expert
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Brownfeld, Gail </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GBROWNF>
X-To: Sanders, Richard B. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rsander>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged)\Sanders, Richard B.\Sempra
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged).pst

	Since you aren't going to the meeting, you might enjoy this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Markel, Gregory A. [mailto:GMarkel@brobeck.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 6:06 PM
To: Brownfeld, Gail
Subject: FW: E-mail re damages expert

	t

> Gail,
>
> As you requested, here is a summary of what we discussed  last week  with
> our damages experts, Seth Schwartz and Emily Medine of Energy Ventures
> Analysis, Inc.
>
> They have received everything they requested from Enron in terms of
> documentation.  They have also gotten hold of the RDI and Hill &
> Associates reports which discuss the coal / synfuel market outlook.  They
> have also reviewed the comments to Rev Proc 200-47, which was the one that
> requested input regarding the IRS's decision at that time to suspend
> issuing PLRs until it rethought the standards that should apply.
>
> Generally speaking, they are finding support for the idea that the
> synfuel/coal spread should diminish and approach zero over a relatively
> short period of time.  Essentially, they are finding that the two are
> commercial substitutes for one another, and that the    primary  reason
> for a discount in synfuel early on is to achieve market acceptance.  In
> fact, there is even some support for the idea that synfuel would trade at
> a premium to coal, because at least some power plants found that burning
> synfuel rather than coal reduces their emissions of nitrous oxide.  The
> spread is the key number both for our damage case and for mitigation.  We
> have discussed previously  how the spread works into the swap agreement
> analysis..  However it is also the key number in mitigation because if the
> spread is less than $5.25 (fully expensed) then the damages should be zero
> if coal is available to run the machines so that Sempra can get the tax
> credit.  Obviously in the short run they may have a claim for down time
> but in the longer run the facilities should be operating and producing
> credits.
>
> They also are looking at how the European market was heading towards
> accepting synfuel.  This is particularly significant since Europe would be
> a large market for Pier IX product.  In this regard, they've been looking
> at records from the CoalTrans conference held in Madrid 10/25-27/00.  Did
> anyone from Enron attend this conference?
>
> They cannot yet put numbers to their analysis, but it generally appears
> that their work is heading in the right direction for us.
>
> On mitigation, as you know, we've been stonewalled by Sempra on our first
> attempt to get information about what they are doing currently in
> Kentucky.  I expect this will be a battle.  The court rules require us to
> attempt to "meet and confer" to resolve the issue without court
> intervention first, then write a letter to the court, and only if that
> results in an impasse can we resort to motion practice.  We  had an
> unproductive meet and confers today on these issues. We will try to bring
> this to ahead as quickly as possible  We are also preparing deposition
> notices for the person most knowledgeable about the mitigation issues.  We
> have also asked Emily and Seth to work on a model for what Sempra could do
> in mitigation efforts based on general market information.  If and when we
> get the specific information about what is happening in Kentucky
> currently, that information will be incorporated into their mitigat


Message-ID: <24953499.1075841601967.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 06:29:21 -0800 (PST)
From: webmaster@cera.com
To: clients@cera.com
Subject: Distributed Energy Investment Challenge--Expectations Meet New
 Realities - CERA Private Report
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: webmaster@cera.com@ENRON
X-To: clients@cera.com
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \ExMerge - Sturm, Fletcher J.\Deleted Items
X-Origin: STURM-F
X-FileName: fletcher sturm 6-26-02.PST

Title: Energy Technology Investing: The Bubble Bursts
URL(s):

http://www.cera.com/eprofile?u=35&m=2978;

***********************************************************************

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY INVESTMENT CHALLENGE--EXPECTATIONS MEET NEW REALITIES

Between 1998 and 2001, investors poured some US$4.36 billion into companies
developing distributed energy (DE) technologies. This investment boom and the
subsequent capital market correction were created by overly optimistic
expectations regarding the size of the opportunity and speed of the market's
development.

*  DE's failure to capture a substantial portion of the California market
during the power crisis in early 2001 and the collapse of the
telecommunications and information technology sectors undermined investors'
confidence. Shifting power market fundamentals and growing uncertainty over the
pace and direction of regulatory change also contributed.

*  Although the short-term market for DE technologies has suffered, in the long
run the revised expectations are part of a healthy trend toward greater
maturity among companies and their backers.

*  Restricted access to capital will slow commercialization of new technologies
and drive consolidation among energy technology companies. Public policy will
become an increasingly important source of funds and other support in the
future.

**end**

Follow above URL for complete Private Report (16 printed pages).

E-mail Category: Private Report
CERA Knowledge Area(s): Distributed Energy

*****************************************************************************************
CERAWeek2002 - February 11-15, 2002 - 21st Annual Executive Conference and
Related Events REGISTER ONLINE TODAY AT:  http://www.cera.com/ceraweek
** Two- and Four-day Passes Available
** Special Enrollment Programs
** Partnership Opportunities
** CERAWeek Online Premium Access
*****************************************************************************************

To make changes to your cera.com profile go to:
http://www.cera.com/client/updateaccount

Forgot your username and password? Go to:
http://www.cera.com/client/forgot

This electronic message and attachments, if any, contain information
from Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. (CERA) which is
confidential and may be privileged. Unauthorized disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this message or any attachments,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.
Terms of Use: http://www.cera.com/tos
Questions/Comments: webmaster@cera.com
Copyright 2001. Cambridge Energy Research Associates


Message-ID: <15514738.1075845231877.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 00:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: 40enron@enron.com
Subject: EnTouch Newsletter
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: ENA Public Relations@ENRON <IMCEANOTES-ENA+20Public+20Relations+40ENRON@ENRON.com>
X-To: All_ENA_EGM_EIM@ENRON <??SAll_ENA_EGM_EIM@ENRON>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Maggi, Mike\Maggi, Mike\Deleted Items
X-Origin: MAGGI-M
X-FileName: Maggi, Mike.pst

BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS

Enron Industrial Markets
EIM has recently formed a Forest Products Origination team led by Rob Saltiel to pursue structured transactions.  Typically, these deals employ a combination of physical supply/offtake, price risk management and/or finance to bring value to Enron and our customers.  Priority commodities include pulp, newsprint, recycled papers, linerboard, and lumber.  Response to the new team's efforts has been positive, as many of the Forest Products companies have needs for commodity and capital solutions that are currently unavailable.

Enron Freight Markets
During its first month in the over-the-road (OTR) trucking business, Enron Freight Markets has completed over 120 spot OTR trades.  On Friday, March 18, there was a shortage in the Houston outbound market and capacity was selling for $1.65 per mile.  By comparison, average market price has stayed in the $1.05-$1.10 per mile range in recent weeks.

EnronOnline
On May 23, Enron Corp. announced that it completed its one-millionth transaction on EnronOnline, the world's largest web-based e-commerce platform for commodities. As an online extension of its successful wholesale energy business, EnronOnline began transacting natural gas and electricity on November 29, 1999.  Since that time, the company has extended the platform to approximately 1500 wholesale commodity products ranging from energy-related commodities to bandwidth, metals, forest products, plastics, petrochemicals, and weather and credit derivatives.

Approximately 60 percent of all Enron transactions are now conducted online, and the cost of processing the transactions has been reduced by 75 percent.

EnronOnline Statistics

Below are the latest figures for EnronOnline as of May 23, 2001

?		Total Life to Date Transactions   > 1 million
?	Life to Date Notional Value of Transactions   > $600 billion

IN THE NEWS
Enron Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jeff Skilling likes to say that the nation's leading energy merchant was ready for the Internet long before there was anything.com. Enron's business of buying and selling commodities - by phone or fax - was a natural fit for the Web. The challenge now is to get the new broadband Internet trading unit on solid footing by proving that bandwidth can be traded like a commodity. BusinessWeek e.biz/May 14,2001.

WELCOME
New Hires
EGM - Gregory Sharp, David Cho
EIM - Rosie Carrizal-Moulinet, Thomas Mathieu
ENA - John Poppa, Brandy Powell

Transfers (to or within)
EGM - Rhonna Palmer

NUGGETS & NOTES

Travel tips of the week:
1)	Fly Coach.  Elite members of frequent flyer programs are often upgraded to first class at no additional charge.
2)	Consider Alternate Airports. If you live within driving distance of two or more airports, examine fares for each airport carefully.  Sometimes special fares are offered for flights into specific airports.

LEGAL STUFF
The information contained in this newsletter is confidential and proprietary to Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries.  It is intended for internal use only and should not be disclosed.

<Embedded Picture (Metafile)>


Message-ID: <2372945.1075845731387.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: ben.jacoby@enron.com
To: steven.krimsky@enron.com
Subject: FW: Attached Files
Cc: kay.mann@enron.com, orshefskyd@gtlaw.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: kay.mann@enron.com, orshefskyd@gtlaw.com
X-From: Ben Jacoby
X-To: Steven Krimsky
X-cc: Kay Mann, orshefskyd@gtlaw.com@SMTP@enronXgate
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Steve:

I have forwarded my comments on the Pompano agreement to Kay, and plan to
follow up with her tomorrow. A commercial point that no one has raised with
me is the escalation on the $650k payment. I am not in favor of this. Where
did this come from? Please advise.

Thanks,

Ben

 -----Original Message-----
From:  MedleyB@gtlaw.com@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-MedleyB+40gtlaw+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 3:58 PM
To: Jacoby, Ben; Krimsky, Steven; Mann, Kay
Subject: Attached Files

Attached is the draft Developers Agreement for Pompano and Deerfield along
with a draft letter to Larry Deetjen.  I am in the process of redlining the
Zisman draft against the newest version which I will forward momentarily.

_______________________________________________________________
The information contained in this transmission may contain
privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only
for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an
email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.
 <<ENRON-DEERFIELD AGREEMENT.DOC>>   <<DBEC-Letter to Larry R. Deetjen.DOC>>
 <<EnronPompano Developers Agreement.DOC>>

 - ENRON-DEERFIELD AGREEMENT.DOC
 - DBEC-Letter to Larry R. Deetjen.DOC
 - EnronPompano Developers Agreement.DOC


Message-ID: <22819638.1075845387775.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: rick.sierra@enron.com
To: paul.y'barbo@enron.com
Subject: FW: Daily Cash Balance Worksheet @ 06-05-01
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Sierra, Rick </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=RSIERRA>
X-To: Y'Barbo, Paul </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Pybarbo>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Y'Barbo, Paul\Y'Barbo, Paul\Deleted Items
X-Origin: YBARBO-P
X-FileName: Y'Barbo, Paul.pst

Paul,

Please call me to discuss.

Rick

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mahan, Mariella
Sent:	Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:35 AM
To:	Sanabria, Jaime; Tortolero, Elio; Sierra, Rick; Zatarain, Brian
Cc:	Cordova, Ernesto
Subject:	RE: Daily Cash Balance Worksheet @ 06-05-01
Sensitivity:	Confidential

Thanks Jaime,
What I don't understand is why you wouldn't do or why you are doing the following:

-	Why are you assuming that PREPA will pay you 75% of the disputed amounts in January?  What is the basis for that - - I have seen no progress from them but I could be wrong.
-	Why wouldn't you negotiate and leave READY your LNG prepayment scheme so that you're ready to pull the trigger in case something else falls through?  If you wait until the last minute (to consider), you will have NO options.

On a separate note, I understand that a potential opportunity exists to look at buying the winter cargo spot vs from Cabot.  Gas prices are dipping down rapidly and this opportunity may be gone if Eco does not evaluate it and decide a course of action very soon.  When this was presented to me I thought it certainly had a lot of merit and it was logical for us to take a look at it immediately.  Having said that, and in keeping with my philosophy that Eco needs to step in and get used to looking at this type of stuff and to making its own decisions (driven by what's best for Eco), I recommended to the Fuel manager that this be something that Eco looks at and decides on.  Where are we on that?

Thanks, Mariella

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sanabria, Jaime
Sent:	Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:45 PM
To:	Mahan, Mariella; Tortolero, Elio; Sierra, Rick; Zatarain, Brian
Cc:	Cordova, Ernesto
Subject:	Daily Cash Balance Worksheet @ 06-05-01
Importance:	High
Sensitivity:	Confidential

Attached please find the daily cash tracking worksheet. Please note that among all the assumptions used to build the worksheet the following are critical:

	1. That we collect the $14 million in insurance claims on or prior to July 13th. I spoke to the insurance brokers today and we expect the money by the end of next week;
	2. The Cabot July 13th payment could change to a few days earlier or later depending on how PREPA dispatches the facility after the rotor outage;
	3. We collect in January 75% of the projected PREPA outstanding amounts in dispute, in order to pay $15 million of subordinated debt.

 << File: Cash_Needs @ 06-05-01.xls >>

Should we not receive the insurance money this month we would consider one or both of the following two proposals as a mechanism to bring cash in:

	1. The purchase of LNG by San Juan Gas;
	2. The purchase of the fuel oil inventory by Peerless.


Message-ID: <14760407.1075852470463.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: wanda.curry@enron.com
To: lisa.mellencamp@enron.com, michael.tribolet@enron.com
Subject: Status of Reconciliation of Receivables with PG&E
Cc: wes.colwell@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bcc: wes.colwell@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com
X-From: Curry, Wanda </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=WCURRY>
X-To: Mellencamp, Lisa </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Lmellen>, Tribolet, Michael </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mtribole>
X-cc: Colwell, Wes </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Wcolwel>, Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jsteffe>
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\California Issues
X-Origin: Steffes-J
X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst

Privileged and Confidential=20

Lisa and Michael,

I  talked with two representatives from PG&E today, Robert Orbeta and Fong =
Wan, regarding the reconciliation of amounts included in Enron's Proof Of C=
laim, which total almost $404 million dollars,  to the books and records of=
 PG&E.  Both Robert and Fong agree that 1) no significant differences have =
been found, 2) the total variance, including IBM,  is approximately $2 mill=
ion dollars, and 3) the reconciliation is substantially complete and theref=
ore, the results should not change materially.  Diann Huddleson will call h=
er counterpart, Mike Alexander,  this afternoon to request a schedule, by a=
ccount, of these variances.  As you know, Enron's Proof of Claim is a compi=
lation of charges/credits reflected on PG&E invoices, and therefore, the on=
ly differences should have been the result of omissions, duplications, or o=
ther query failures.  All things being equal, the reconciliation should hav=
e been a simple comparison, but at an account level.  The sheer number of a=
ccounts for several months of activity,  made this reconciliation a challen=
ge.=20

Both Robert and Fong made remarks regarding Enron's claim for the IBM dual =
bill accounts.  Mr.  Fong also commented that another outstanding item, in =
his opinion, was the "FERC refund case".   I suggested that these items be =
included on the agenda for the settlement discussions scheduled for next we=
ek.=20

Let me know if you need anything further.=20

Thanks,
Wanda


Message-ID: <7921014.1075855008206.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 05:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: lkunkel@trigon-sheehan.com
To: earl.chanley@enron.com, michelle.lokay@enron.com
Subject: RE: EOG Pronghorn Material cost
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: lkunkel@trigon-sheehan.com
X-To: Chanley, Earl </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ECHANLEY>, Lokay, Michelle </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MLOKAY>
X-cc: lkunkel@trigon-sheehan.com, Jolly, Rich </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=NOTESADDR/CN=55EEE558-76F46491-86256743-7D2B01>
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \MLOKAY (Non-Privileged)\TW-Commercial Group
X-Origin: Lokay-M
X-FileName: MLOKAY (Non-Privileged).pst

Thanks, EC!  FYI - The last four items, starting with the Bristol, the two
transmitters and the sensors should be taken off this list to EOG since
these went to WT-1.  This will reduce the cost by $7698.
Laura J. Kunkel
Project Manager
Trigon-Sheehan, LLC
505/627-9124
lkunkel@trigon-sheehan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Chanley, Earl [mailto:Earl.Chanley@ENRON.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:44 PM
To: Lokay, Michelle
Cc: lkunkel@trigon-sheehan.com; Jolly, Rich
Subject: EOG Pronghorn Material cost

Michelle

The cost for material ordered for this work order is $94,126.27.
the attached spread sheet is from the SAP accounting system and invoices
will be routed to Marketing to forward to EOG for the supporting
documentation to this spreadsheet.
If you have any Questions,. please contact me.

Earl Chanley

 <<material po.xls>>

**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************


Message-ID: <3356434.1075853200099.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:06:00 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.mara@enron.com
To: alan.comnes@enron.com, angela.schwarz@enron.com, beverly.aden@enron.com,
	bill.votaw@enron.com, brenda.barreda@enron.com,
	carol.moffett@enron.com, cathy.corbin@enron.com,
	chris.foster@enron.com, christina.liscano@enron.com,
	christopher.calger@enron.com, craig.sutter@enron.com,
	dan.leff@enron.com, debora.whitehead@enron.com,
	dennis.benevides@enron.com, don.black@enron.com,
	dorothy.youngblood@enron.com, douglas.huth@enron.com,
	edward.sacks@enron.com, eric.melvin@enron.com, erika.dupre@enron.com,
	evan.hughes@enron.com, fran.deltoro@enron.com,
	frank.vickers@enron.com, gayle.muench@enron.com,
	ginger.dernehl@enron.com, gordon.savage@enron.com,
	harold.buchanan@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com,
	iris.waser@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, james.lewis@enron.com,
	james.wright@enron.com, jeff.messina@enron.com,
	jeremy.blachman@enron.com, jess.hewitt@enron.com,
	joe.hartsoe@enron.com, karen.denne@enron.com, kathy.bass@enron.com,
	kathy.dodgen@enron.com, ken.gustafson@enron.com,
	kevin.hughes@enron.com, leasa.lopez@enron.com,
	leticia.botello@enron.com, mark.muller@enron.com,
	marsha.suggs@enron.com, marty.sunde@enron.com,
	meredith.eggleston@enron.com, michael.etringer@enron.com,
	michael.mann@enron.com, michelle.cisneros@enron.com,
	mike.smith@enron.com, mpalmer@enron.com, neil.bresnan@enron.com,
	neil.hong@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, paula.warren@enron.com,
	richard.zdunkewicz@enron.com, richard.leibert@enron.com,
	richard.shapiro@enron.com, rita.hennessy@enron.com,
	robert.badeer@enron.com, roger.yang@enron.com,
	rosalinda.tijerina@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com,
	sarah.novosel@enron.com, scott.gahn@enron.com,
	scott.stoness@enron.com, sharon.dick@enron.com, skean@enron.com,
	tanya.leslie@enron.com, tasha.lair@enron.com, ted.murphy@enron.com,
	terri.greenlee@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com,
	tony.spruiell@enron.com, vicki.sharp@enron.com,
	vladimir.gorny@enron.com, wanda.curry@enron.com,
	william.bradford@enron.com, mike.smith@enron.com,
	donna.fulton@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com,
	richard.sanders@enron.com, gfergus@brobeck.com,
	rcarroll@bracepatt.com, kathryn.corbally@enron.com,
	dwatkiss@bracepatt.com
Subject: Update -- Day 2 -- 2nd Session -- FERC CA Settlement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Susan J Mara
X-To: Alan Comnes, Angela Schwarz, Beverly Aden, Bill Votaw, Brenda Barreda, Carol Moffett, Cathy Corbin, Chris H Foster, Christina Liscano, Christopher F Calger, Craig H Sutter, Dan Leff, Debora Whitehead, Dennis Benevides, Don Black, Dorothy Youngblood, Douglas Huth, Edward Sacks, Eric Melvin, Erika Dupre, Evan Hughes, Fran Deltoro, Frank W Vickers, Gayle W Muench, Ginger Dernehl, Gordon Savage, Harold G Buchanan, Harry Kingerski, Iris Waser, James D Steffes, James W Lewis, James Wright, Jeff Messina, Jeremy Blachman, Jess Hewitt, Joe Hartsoe, Karen Denne, Kathy Bass, Kathy Dodgen, Ken Gustafson, Kevin Hughes, Leasa Lopez, Leticia Botello, Mark S Muller, Marsha Suggs, Marty Sunde, Meredith M Eggleston, Michael Etringer, Michael Mann, Michelle D Cisneros, Mike M Smith, mpalmer@enron.com, Neil Bresnan, Neil Hong, Paul Kaufman, Paula Warren, Richard L Zdunkewicz, Richard Leibert, Richard Shapiro, Rita Hennessy, Robert Badeer, Roger Yang, Rosalinda Tijerina, Sandra McCubbin, Sarah Novosel, Scott Gahn, Scott Stoness, Sharon Dick, skean@enron.com, Tanya Leslie, Tasha Lair, Ted Murphy, Terri Greenlee, Tim Belden, Tony Spruiell, Vicki Sharp, Vladimir Gorny, Wanda Curry, William S Bradford, Mike D Smith, Donna Fulton, Jeff Dasovich, Richard B Sanders, gfergus@brobeck.com, rcarroll@bracepatt.com, Kathryn Corbally, dwatkiss@bracepatt.com
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

In the


Message-ID: <14729060.1075849313624.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: alan.comnes@enron.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, jennifer.thome@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com,
	james.steffes@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com,
	dave.perrino@enron.com, ban.sharma@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com,
	ray.alvarez@enron.com
Subject: DWR Stranded Cost Update
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Alan Comnes
X-To: Jeff Dasovich, Jennifer Thome, Richard Shapiro, James D Steffes, Susan J Mara, Dave Perrino, Ban Sharma, Tim Belden, Ray Alvarez
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Oct2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: DASOVICH-J
X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf

Using information pulled together by Jennifer and BAN, I requested West
Tradings Risk/Structuring Group do a more careful analysis of the
above-market costs associated with the DWR contracts.  Attached is their
analysis.

In this analysis we examined only the executed contracts and NOT the
agreements-in principle.  (Only executed contracts were released by the state
in the last few weeks.) Also, gas-indexed contracts were examined on their
nongas costs only.  Since gas costs are a pass through on some contracts, we
excluded them as a conservatism; i.e., we did not ascribe costs to the gas
portion of the contracts since they will float with market costs over time.
These contracts were marked to market using current, applicable curves.
Finally we discounted at the LIBOR rate, which is around 4%/year.

The stranded cost under these assumptions  is approximately $10 billion.  The
spreadsheet shows the overmarket costs by contract.  Note: a negative
"mark-to-market" equals a positive stranded cost.

As before, this analysis is based upon Enron's confidential forward curves.
Approval from Tim Belden is needed before this analysis can be released.

Alan Comnes


Message-ID: <28029348.1075841401697.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:14:24 -0800 (PST)
From: joe.parks@enron.com
To: gerald.nemec@enron.com
Subject: RE: FW: Gas Storage Agreement with Duke Energy Field Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Parks, Joe </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JPARKS>
X-To: Nemec, Gerald </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Gnemec>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \ExMerge - Parks, Joe\Sent Items
X-Origin: PARKS-J
X-FileName: joe parks 6-26-02.pst

I believe you have everything

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nemec, Gerald
Sent:	Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:13 AM
To:	'"Proctor, Shemin V." <sproctor@akllp.com>@ENRON'
Cc:	Parks, Joe
Subject:	RE: FW: Gas Storage Agreement with Duke Energy Field Services

All I have is what I gave to you.  Joe,  where there any other documents received from Centana?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Proctor, Shemin V." <sproctor@akllp.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:04 AM
To:	Nemec, Gerald
Subject:	RE: FW: Gas Storage Agreement with Duke Energy Field Services

Hi Gerald,
Yesterday you gave me the gas transportation contract between CIPCO and
ENA. Do you have a copy of the firm gas storage agreement between the
parties? My no is 5-3910. Thanks

Shemin

-----Original Message-----
From: Nemec, Gerald [mailto:Gerald.Nemec@ENRON.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 12:32 PM
To: Proctor, Shemin V.; Mann, Kay
Cc: mark.ellenberg@cwt.com
Subject: FW: FW: Gas Storage Agreement with Duke Energy Field Services

Kay,  Mark is aware of this transaction.  The following is his response
to Centana's counsel email.  I did discuss with Mark this morning, the
current course we are following with Centana and he agreed it made
sense.

As it stands now we would sell all the gas in-place to Centana and they
would net out post-petition fees.  Our business people feel that we have
used the storage services post-petition and consequently those fees
would be an administrative expense.  An amount equivalent to the
pre-petition fees would be held in escrow until the bankrutpcy court
resolved the pre-petition amounts.   All remaining amounts would be
delivered to Enron North America.

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	"Mark Ellenberg" <Mark.Ellenberg@cwt.com>@ENRON
> Sent:	Friday, February 15, 2002 8:22 AM
> To:	Nemec, Gerald
> Cc:	melanie.gray@weil.com; david.wolnerman@weil.com; Mann, Kay
> Subject:	Re: FW: Gas Storage Agreement with Duke Energy Field
Services
>
>
> He is wrong on just about every point.  In the few instances where he
has
> stated correct legal principles, he has misapplied them.
>
>    the bankruptcy code expressly cuts off interest on unsecured claims
as
>    of the petition date.
>    refusing to act under the contract unless prepetition debt is paid
is a
>    violation of the automatic stay.  in this regard, it should be
noted
>    that obligations maturing postpetition are still prepetition debts
to
>    the extent they arise from a prepetition contract, such as here.
>    both set off and recoupment require that there be a debt owed to
the
>    debtor by the counterparty and a debt owed by the debtor to the
>    counterparty.  here, the unstated premise of centana's position is
that
>    centana's obligation to return gas is a debt owed by it to to
enron.
>    this is wrong.  centana is merely a bailee of the gas and its
return
>    obligation is not a debt.  this is clearly established in the
cotton
>    warehouse cases i have previously sent you the cites for.
>    section 365(d)(3), on its face, only applies to leases of
nonresidential
>    real property.  a gas storage agreement is obviously not such a
lease.
>    the court has already ruled that enron deserves time to determine
>    whether to assume or reject executory contracts.  in addition, the
court
>    has ruled that parties to executory contracts are not entitled to
relief
>    from the stay or adequate prote


Message-ID: <25696048.1075854946379.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 09:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: e..haedicke@enron.com
To: eddy.daniels@enron.com
Subject: RE: Sale of New Albany
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Haedicke, Mark E. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MHAEDIC>
X-To: Daniels, Eddy </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Edaniel2>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \MHAEDIC (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items
X-Origin: Haedicke-M
X-FileName: MHAEDIC (Non-Privileged).pst

Congrats!  Thanks for your help.  Mark

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Daniels, Eddy
Sent:	Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:13 AM
To:	Schuler, Lance (Legal); Haedicke, Mark E.
Subject:	FW: Sale of New Albany

Happy to confirm this deal closed about an hour ago.  We rec'd $135,000,000.

EDD

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Zisman, Stuart
Sent:	Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:00 AM
To:	Eghneim, Gus; Meyer, Chris; Carnahan, Kathleen; Will, Lloyd; Thode, Eric; Rust, Bill; Scott, Susan M.; Gilbert, Gerald; Vos, Theresa; Sherman, Cris; Daniels, Eddy; Marshall, David; Seade, Jerry; Garcia, Paul; Newlin, Ross; Callaghan, Tom; Virgo, Robert; Garcia, Paul; Hoff, Jonathan; White, Stacey W.
Cc:	Miller, Don (Asset Mktg); Kitchen, Louise; Colwell, Wes; Presto, Kevin M.
Subject:	Sale of New Albany

The transaction for the sale of the New Albany Peaker Plant just closed.  Paul Garcia of Enron treasury confirmed that we received the wire transfer of the purchase proceeds from Duke.

I would like to personally thank everyone that was involved in the sales process.  This transaction went very smoothly and I received several compliments from our counterparty regarding our professionalism on this deal.

Please take all post-closing actions that are required to finally consummate the conveyance and also be aware that the Purchase and Sale Agreement requires us to keep any and all data or information regarding the project and the transaction confidential for a period of two years.  In order to comply with the foregoing provision, I would strongly suggest that conversations regarding this transaction be limited to only those Enron employees who have a "need to know."

Thanks

Stuart


Message-ID: <5910975.1075844940218.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: steve.duffy@enron.com
To: stanley.horton@enron.com
Subject: Re: Phoenix/Equilon Deal; CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT
 COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY'S WORK PRODUCT
Cc: cindy.stark@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: cindy.stark@enron.com
X-From: Steve Duffy
X-To: Stanley Horton
X-cc: Cindy Stark
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Stanley_Horton_1\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: HORTON-S
X-FileName: shorton.nsf

Stan:  I understand completely, and we will do our very best to achieve your
desired approach.  The problem is this: Regardless of what the MOU says,  we
will have to go through a size/probability analysis on this deal.  The deal
is clearly material to EOTT.  From an SEC perspective, the duty to disclose a
pending deal depends upon how material the transaction is and how likely it
is to occur.  If a deal is very material, a lower degree of probability is
needed before disclosure is required.  The MOU itself is not totally
determinative, although signing a document which looks like an LOI will
increase the chances of having to disclose.  In the present case, if
Equilon's Board gives the go- ahead to deal with us exclusively, I feel there
would be at least a 20% chance of closing a transaction (based upon past
dealings with these folks). Accordingly, if/when that happens, we will need
to take a hard look at the disclosure issue.  We do not want to disclose
prematurely, but I am pretty sure that this deal would be considered
"material," and if we go forward with Equilon, I believe that we will need to
disclose it at some point prior to closing (certainly after signing a PSA).
We can delay disclosure for a period of time for legitimate business reasons,
and the MOU we sign may not rise to the level of an LOI, but at some
point---if we go forward with Equilon---we are going to reach a point where
the size and probability of the deal will mandate disclosure.  We don't need
to make a decision at this point, we just need to be aware of these
circumstances and manage the process accordingly.

From a different perspective, we want to sign some kind of LOI with Equilon
as soon as we feel comfortable doing so because we want the HSR waiting
period to begin running.  Equilon wants to close by November 1st.

Please advise if you wish to discuss further.  Thanks.  SWD

	Stanley Horton@ENRON
	Sent by: Cindy Stark@ENRON
	07/12/2000 02:04 PM

		 To: Steve Duffy/Houston/Eott@EOTT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Phoenix/Equilon Deal; CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT
COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY'S WORK PRODUCT

Steve:

Let's start thinking about how we could structure the MOU so we wouldn't have
to disclose the deal.  I would rather not disclose a "tentative deal".

Stan

From: Steve Duffy@EOTT on 07/11/2000 01:47 PM
To: Dana Gibbs, Lori Maddox/Houston/Eott@Eott, Stanley Horton/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Joe Richards, rbaird@velaw.com, Susan Ralph

Subject: Phoenix/Equilon Deal; CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND
ATTORNEY'S WORK PRODUCT

Joe R. will be sending out something in greater detail shortly, but it
appears that Equilon's management would like to pursue a deal with us on an
exclusive basis and that this decision is being forwarded to the Equilon
Board for approval.  If this acquisition goes forward, we will need to get
organized---in the near term---on a number of logistical/due diligence tasks,
but one thing we should start thinking about now is the "disclosure" issue.

If the Equilon Board gives the go-ahead for Equilon to pursue this
transaction , Equilon will probably want  to sign a memorandum of
understanding with us, and this may put us in a "disclosure" posture because
at that point, we would be looking at a $65 million deal (approx.) with a
closure probability of no less than 20% (in my judgment, based upon our past
dealings


Message-ID: <23803697.1075848177887.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: kristin.walsh@enron.com
To: louise.kitchen@enron.com, john.lavorato@enron.com
Subject: California Update 4/27/01
Cc: phillip.allen@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com,
	chris.gaskill@enron.com, mike.grigsby@enron.com,
	tim.heizenrader@enron.com, vince.kaminski@enron.com,
	steven.kean@enron.com, rob.milnthorp@enron.com,
	kevin.presto@enron.com, claudio.ribeiro@enron.com,
	richard.shapiro@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com,
	mark.tawney@enron.com, scott.tholan@enron.com,
	britt.whitman@enron.com, lloyd.will@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: phillip.allen@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com,
	chris.gaskill@enron.com, mike.grigsby@enron.com,
	tim.heizenrader@enron.com, vince.kaminski@enron.com,
	steven.kean@enron.com, rob.milnthorp@enron.com,
	kevin.presto@enron.com, claudio.ribeiro@enron.com,
	richard.shapiro@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com,
	mark.tawney@enron.com, scott.tholan@enron.com,
	britt.whitman@enron.com, lloyd.will@enron.com
X-From: Kristin Walsh
X-To: Louise Kitchen, John J Lavorato
X-cc: Phillip K Allen, Tim Belden, Jeff Dasovich, Chris Gaskill, Mike Grigsby, Tim Heizenrader, Vince J Kaminski, Steven J Kean, Rob Milnthorp, Kevin M Presto, Claudio Ribeiro, Richard Shapiro, James D Steffes, Mark Tawney, Scott Tholan, Britt Whitman, Lloyd Will
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_June2001_4\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

The following report contains confidential and sensitive information.  Please
treat with discretion.

Executive Summary:
? FERC price cap decision reflects Bush political and economic objectives.
Politically, Bush is determined to let the crisis blame fall on Davis; from
an economic perspective, he is unwilling to create disincentives for new
power generation
? Davis finds four major flaws with FERC plan, most notably its exclusion of
out-of-state generators
? June 1st "kill clause" for FERC order could coincide with new Bush regional
plan
? California facing growing fiscal risk following bond downgrade, expected
$20 billion power bill this summer--economic crisis would force deeper
Administration involvement
? QF bid for advance payments from PG&E likely to fail in bankruptcy court
? New generation delays probable because of State/QF squabbling
? Consumer groups are preparing a constitutional challenge to SoCal bailout
deal

1. FERC Fallout
The FERC decision is a holding move by the Bush administration that looks
like action, but is not.  Rather, it allows the situation in California to
continue to develop virtually unabated.  The political strategy appears to
allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where Davis cannot escape
shouldering the blame.  Once they are politically inoculated,  the
Administration can begin to look at regional solutions.  Moreover, the
Administration has already made explicit (and will certainly restate in the
forthcoming Cheney commission report) its opposition to stronger price caps
on the grounds that they are unwilling to create disincentives to the
construction of new generation.

It is interesting and ironic to note that electricity generators were
generally happy with the FERC order and that the only FERC commissioner who
favors price caps actually voted against this plan.

2. Something Less than Effective Price Caps
 From Davis's point of view, the FERC plan has four major flaws:
? The order applies only to California, not to the rest of the west.
Non-California generators are not required to sell at capped rates to
California.
? As the order is written, it is more of a price floor for emergency power
than a ceiling.
? State officials also believe that energy suppliers will continue to game
the system, because the price mitigation scheme only kicks in after a S

Louise Kitchen, John J Lavorato
Kristin Walsh


Message-ID: <13960783.1075845653629.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:06:00 -0800 (PST)
From: kay.mann@enron.com
To: suzanne.adams@enron.com
Subject: invoices
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Kay Mann
X-To: Suzanne Adams
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Please do what you can to find out what is going on. I know you forwarded
these to Carolyn, but I would still appreciate it if you could investigate,
or ask Carolyn to do so.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 01/14/2001 08:04
AM ---------------------------

"Boyd J. Springer" <bjspringer@JonesDay.com> on 01/12/2001 01:22:11 PM
To: kay.mann@enron.com
cc:

Subject: invoices

Kay: We recently received payment of our June, 2000 invoice. Previously, we
had received payment of the September, 2000 invoice. This leaves
outstanding the invoices for July, 2000 (30492348; $9,810.19); August, 2000
(30502885; $3273.75); October, 2000 (30526950; $1819.73), November, 2000
(30539817; $1510.45); and December, 2000 ($1675.29). At the request of your
assistant, I forward the information re the invoices through November to
the Enron accounts payable help desk, but I did not hear back. Anything you
can do to expedite payment of theses invoices would be appreciated.

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========


Message-ID: <25502516.1075853232814.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:09:00 -0800 (PST)
From: gfergus@brobeck.com
To: richard.b.sanders@enron.com
Subject: Berg Complaint - LA Issues
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: "Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
X-To: "Richard B. Sanders Esq. (E-mail)" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Iso_ pricecaps
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

Richard,
 I included a copy of the Berg anti-trust and unfair competition
complaint filed by Tom Girardi and others in Los Angeles.  Tom Girardi is
the single best plaintiff's lawyer in southern California.  You may recall
his results against PG&E, Lockheed etc. where recovered billions of dollars.
He is well funded and has really good lawyers that work for him. He is
reputed to have close associations with many state court judges in Los
Angeles.

 Both Dick Odom and Michael Molland have been opposite Tom Girardi
for other clients.  Dick represented Roberts & Stevens in a complicated
securities case Fightertown v. Roberts & Stevens  that was tried for 8
weeks.   Tom Girardi posted $320M as damages in the case.  He received a
verdict of $7.0M which was eliminated by Dick's motion for JNOV.  Dick is
one of the very few trial lawyers that have gone head to head with Tom in
significant trial and won.  Dick was recently retained in another case where
Tom Girardi is the plaintiff's lawyer.  Apparently, we knew somebody who
happened to be with Tom Girardi when he received Brobeck's appearance.  His
comment was something to the effect of "Oh shit. Not those bastards again."

 Not many defendants have the courage to take a case where Girardi is
the plaintiff's counsel to trial.  Very few of the companies that have taken
him to trial have won.

 Mike Molland has also had several cases opposite Tom Girardi where
Michael represented Browning Ferris Industries as its lead trial lawyer in
the mid 1990s in the serial litigation that arose from the waste disposal
crisis  in Los Angeles County during that time. Girardi's firm sued BFI in
those and other cases during that time.  Michael was able to get BFI
dismissed from all but one of those cases early in the process. The other
case was stayed.

 I know we did not discuss these capabilities when you and Jim were
in San Francisco --in large part, because we did not have the Berg complaint
in hand at the time.  If Enron is considering lining up local counsel in Los
Angeles in the event that it is brought into the Berg case, I hope that you
will consider Dick.

Thanks
Gary

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com

Fergus, Gary S.
Richard B. Sanders Esq. (E-mail)


Message-ID: <24928951.1075849613029.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
To: michael.tribolet@enron.com
Subject: DWR Stranded Cost Update
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Jeff Dasovich
X-To: Michael Tribolet
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: DASOVICH-J
X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf

----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/11/2001 07:14 PM -----

	Alan Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate
	07/11/2001 05:03 PM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer Thome/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, Ban
Sharma/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: DWR Stranded Cost Update

Using information pulled together by Jennifer and BAN, I requested West
Tradings Risk/Structuring Group do a more careful analysis of the
above-market costs associated with the DWR contracts.  Attached is their
analysis.

In this analysis we examined only the executed contracts and NOT the
agreements-in principle.  (Only executed contracts were released by the state
in the last few weeks.) Also, gas-indexed contracts were examined on their
nongas costs only.  Since gas costs are a pass through on some contracts, we
excluded them as a conservatism; i.e., we did not ascribe costs to the gas
portion of the contracts since they will float with market costs over time.
These contracts were marked to market using current, applicable curves.
Finally we discounted at the LIBOR rate, which is around 4%/year.

The stranded cost under these assumptions  is approximately $10 billion.  The
spreadsheet shows the overmarket costs by contract.  Note: a negative
"mark-to-market" equals a positive stranded cost.

As before, this analysis is based upon Enron's confidential forward curves.
Approval from Tim Belden is needed before this analysis can be released.

Alan Comnes


Message-ID: <4402018.1075853231894.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:00:00 -0800 (PST)
From: gfergus@brobeck.com
To: richard.b.sanders@enron.com, rgiibbs@gibbs-bruns.com,
	robert.c.williams@enron.com, msmith1@enron.com
Subject: San Diego Case Status Report
Cc: dlamb@brobeck.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: dlamb@brobeck.com
X-From: "Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
X-To: "Richard B. Sanders Esq. (E-mail)" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>, rgiibbs@gibbs-bruns.com, Robert.C.Williams@enron.com, msmith1@enron.com
X-cc: "Lamb, Daniel G." <DLamb@brobeck.com>
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Iso_ pricecaps
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

Here are the results of our efforts so far:

Discussions with Local Counsel:
 Here is the list of firms and individuals that we have contacted as
well as the results of conflict checks and availability.  In short, There
are some conflict issues with several of the firms.  One firm was directly
conflicted.  Another has as one of its partners, the wife of Len Simon, the
lead plaintiff's counsel in our case.  Assuming that conflicts can be
resolved, we have five different lawyers available to be interviewed on
Monday.

 <<status11.30.doc>>
Economic Experts

 Local

  Retained:  Carey P.  Mack,  Bruno & Mack
  The best testifying expert in town, economic accounting
damages.  Relates best to San Diego jury.   Not an anti-trust
model building type of expert.

  Tom Lambert
   Solo (he is checking conflict list right now.  If no
conflict, he is willing to work for us.)

  Broadshatzer, Wallace, Spoon & Yip
   Roberta Spoon (on vacation)
 National
  Charles River
    Gordon Rausser will be meeting with CEO of
Enron, Ken Lay on other matters on Friday 10:00a.m. in Houston on another
matter.  They are very interested in being retained.  They are doing
conflict check. He is willing to stop by and see you if that would be
helpful.
  NERA
   Waiting for response

Non-testifying Consultants

 Larry Ruff
  RETAINED: to assist in reviewing EPMI data.

Procedural Issues:

 We are investigating to see whether there are any California
defendants to consider removal.  Because we  attended  the press
conference (momentarily and obtained a copy of the complaint) we should
assume that  the removal clock is ticking.
News Reports

 We have identified a service that has recorded the news reports
about this lawsuit.  There are 28 hits so far for TV reports.  It will cost
$300 per clip to obtain them.  Do you know if Enron is getting these clips
from the public relations firm?  Should we get them?

Anti-Trust Law School Professors.

 We have identified Tom Campbell (ran against Diane Feinstein for
Senate.  We have a number for him in Washington good until tomorrow.  He was
former Director Competitive Compliance Division FTC, has Harvard Ph.D. in
Economics.  Should we contact him?

Thanks
Gary

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com

 - status11.30.doc


Message-ID: <5941542.1075843997430.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 05:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mike.mcconnell@enron.com
To: richard.harper@enron.com
Subject: Re: J-Block
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Mike McConnell
X-To: Richard Harper
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Mark_McConnell_June2001\Notes Folders\'sent mail
X-Origin: MCCONNELL-M
X-FileName: mmcconn.nsf

Thanks for the quick response.  I sent it on to John.  Don't be surprised if
he calls you;  you are the master of this deal.

Mike

Richard Harper
06/07/2000 09:30 AM
To: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: J-Block

I have not been involved, but only last week a little bird told me that they
have severe problems with reserve levels and expect to decline in 2002, when
we were talking it was 2004 and then only by a small amount.  Agip is
particularly adversely effected (as Agip in particular lacks reserves in the
area).  I understand the development of Jade by BG and Phillips and the
squeeze down of Texaco and OMV, the other Jade owners, by Agip  to sell their
gas to Agip was driven by this lack of reserves.

You will recall that liquidated damages was a big issue they wanted to retain
them rather than actual damages and we insisted that they remained at the
same absolute level as in the old agreement, so I believe they are 40% of the
new price (my memory is fading also).  I do recall that they all insisted
that they would deliver the gas.  However, as with most companies the players
have all moved on and a contract is a contract, afterall this was our
approach.  Also I am sure they intended to maximise production from J-Block
and did not forsee a shortage of production.

 It would be interesting to know if this is an agreed policy by them or
whether one of the sellers is blocking the NBP sale by refusing to
co-operate, they could do this because of the Common Stream Agreement.
Presumably they have not yet split the 3 agreements yet.

As to opportunity if they are short of reserves, perhaps they can buy
themselves out of the situation, especially while the contract is in the
money.

With my adversarial hat on perhaps BG want revenge for their loss in the
appeal courts?   This is probably nearest to the truth.

I'm afraid this isn't much help and I do not recall any willful default
provisions in the agreement.

Richard

Mike McConnell
07/06/2000 14:49
To: Richard Harper/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: J-Block

Richard,
 Hello from South America.  I am forwarding this email from John regarding
the J-Block problems.  Have you been involved in this?  What are your
thoughts?  If you have any ideas or can provide with some help, please
follow-up.  This is confidential but i thought you could help.  When he
mentioned this, I really couldn't remember much.  Amazing how the memory
fades on some of the details in just a few years.

Mike
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT on 06/07/2000
08:47 AM ---------------------------

John Sherriff
06/06/2000 12:09 PM
To: Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Lewis/LON/ECT@ECT, Peter
Crilly/LON/ECT@ECT
Subject: J-Block

I mentioned on our conference call on Monday that J-Block has had problems
meeting our nominations from the Judy/Joanne/Janice reservoirs.

Up until recent CATS maintenance shutdown on 15 May, they were making up for
reduced production volumes by nominating to supply gas at the NBP which they
are entitled but not obliged to do.  Since return from outage at the end of
May they have declined to nominate at the NBP.

From 1 January to 15 May, the Sellers use of the NBP delivery option kept
underdeliveries to 350 mmcf (ie one day's maximum quantity) in total.  Since
returning from the maintenance shutdown, underdeliveries have totalled 850
mmcf ( averaging 77mcf/d ).

We believe that following the sharp rise in market prices during the
maintenance


Message-ID: <24758226.1075843928617.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 05:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mike.mcconnell@enron.com
To: richard.harper@enron.com
Subject: Re: J-Block
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Mike McConnell
X-To: Richard Harper
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Mark_McConnell_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: MCCONNELL-M
X-FileName: mmcconn.nsf

Thanks for the quick response.  I sent it on to John.  Don't be surprised if
he calls you;  you are the master of this deal.

Mike

Richard Harper
06/07/2000 09:30 AM
To: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: J-Block

I have not been involved, but only last week a little bird told me that they
have severe problems with reserve levels and expect to decline in 2002, when
we were talking it was 2004 and then only by a small amount.  Agip is
particularly adversely effected (as Agip in particular lacks reserves in the
area).  I understand the development of Jade by BG and Phillips and the
squeeze down of Texaco and OMV, the other Jade owners, by Agip  to sell their
gas to Agip was driven by this lack of reserves.

You will recall that liquidated damages was a big issue they wanted to retain
them rather than actual damages and we insisted that they remained at the
same absolute level as in the old agreement, so I believe they are 40% of the
new price (my memory is fading also).  I do recall that they all insisted
that they would deliver the gas.  However, as with most companies the players
have all moved on and a contract is a contract, afterall this was our
approach.  Also I am sure they intended to maximise production from J-Block
and did not forsee a shortage of production.

 It would be interesting to know if this is an agreed policy by them or
whether one of the sellers is blocking the NBP sale by refusing to
co-operate, they could do this because of the Common Stream Agreement.
Presumably they have not yet split the 3 agreements yet.

As to opportunity if they are short of reserves, perhaps they can buy
themselves out of the situation, especially while the contract is in the
money.

With my adversarial hat on perhaps BG want revenge for their loss in the
appeal courts?   This is probably nearest to the truth.

I'm afraid this isn't much help and I do not recall any willful default
provisions in the agreement.

Richard

Mike McConnell
07/06/2000 14:49
To: Richard Harper/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: J-Block

Richard,
 Hello from South America.  I am forwarding this email from John regarding
the J-Block problems.  Have you been involved in this?  What are your
thoughts?  If you have any ideas or can provide with some help, please
follow-up.  This is confidential but i thought you could help.  When he
mentioned this, I really couldn't remember much.  Amazing how the memory
fades on some of the details in just a few years.

Mike
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT on 06/07/2000
08:47 AM ---------------------------

John Sherriff
06/06/2000 12:09 PM
To: Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Lewis/LON/ECT@ECT, Peter
Crilly/LON/ECT@ECT
Subject: J-Block

I mentioned on our conference call on Monday that J-Block has had problems
meeting our nominations from the Judy/Joanne/Janice reservoirs.

Up until recent CATS maintenance shutdown on 15 May, they were making up for
reduced production volumes by nominating to supply gas at the NBP which they
are entitled but not obliged to do.  Since return from outage at the end of
May they have declined to nominate at the NBP.

From 1 January to 15 May, the Sellers use of the NBP delivery option kept
underdeliveries to 350 mmcf (ie one day's maximum quantity) in total.  Since
returning from the maintenance shutdown, underdeliveries have totalled 850
mmcf ( averaging 77mcf/d ).

We believe that following the sharp rise in market prices during the
mainten


Message-ID: <1563597.1075844051108.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 03:13:00 -0800 (PST)
From: lorna.brennan@enron.com
To: courtney.barker@enron.com, roger.westfall@enron.com, steve.thomas@enron.com,
	doug.aschwege@enron.com, judy.beck@enron.com, ken.anderson@enron.com,
	bryan.reinecke@enron.com, robert.johnson@enron.com,
	carolyn.descoteaux@enron.com, becki.souci@enron.com,
	gary.choquette@enron.com, ld.stephens@enron.com,
	john.goodpasture@enron.com, michael.ratner@enron.com,
	sebastian.corbacho@enron.com, yuan.tian@enron.com,
	rockey.storie@enron.com, kent.miller@enron.com,
	john.dushinske@enron.com, dave.neubauer@enron.com,
	bill.fowler@enron.com, michael.bodnar@enron.com,
	joni.bollinger@enron.com, david.badura@enron.com,
	janet.bowers@enron.com, craig.buehler@enron.com,
	bob.burleson@enron.com, allen.cohrs@enron.com, john.fiscus@enron.com,
	steve.gilbert@enron.com, morgan.gottsponer@enron.com,
	stephen.herber@enron.com, dana.jones@enron.com,
	stephanie.korbelik@enron.com, bill.mangels@enron.com,
	penny.mccarran@enron.com, vernon.mercaldo@enron.com,
	larry.pavlou@enron.com, eileen.peebles@enron.com,
	tony.perry@enron.com, loren.penkava@enron.com, ken.powers@enron.com,
	chris.sebesta@enron.com, frank.semin@enron.com, neal.shaw@enron.com,
	larry.swett@enron.com, kay.threet@enron.com, mike.ullom@enron.com,
	lisa.valley@enron.com, chuck.wilkinson@enron.com,
	jim.wiltfong@enron.com, jo.williams@enron.com,
	karen.lagerstrom@enron.com, bob.stevens@enron.com,
	sue.neville@enron.com, mike.barry@enron.com,
	martha.janousek@enron.com, kimberly.watson@enron.com,
	don.powell@enron.com, steve.weller@enron.com,
	michael.stage@enron.com, tim.johanson@enron.com,
	laura.lantefield@enron.com, frank.oldenhuis@enron.com,
	jeff.nielsen@enron.com, robert.mason@enron.com, sean.bolks@enron.com,
	miriam.martinez@enron.com, lee.ferrell@enron.com,
	john.williams@enron.com, reyna.cabrera@enron.com,
	theresa.branney@enron.com, jan.moore@enron.com,
	mike.mcgowan@enron.com, jeffery.fawcett@enron.com,
	lorraine.lindberg@enron.com, kevin.hyatt@enron.com,
	christine.stokes@enron.com, tk.lohman@enron.com,
	michelle.lokay@enron.com, lindy.donoho@enron.com,
	steven.harris@enron.com
Subject: CERA Insight: The Gales of November Recap and December Forecast
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Lorna Brennan
X-To: Courtney Barker, Roger Westfall, Steve Thomas, Doug Aschwege, Judy Beck, Ken Anderson, Bryan Reinecke, Robert L Johnson, Carolyn DesCoteaux, Becki Sans Souci, Gary Choquette, LD Stephens, John Goodpasture, Michael Ratner, Sebastian Corbacho, Yuan Tian, Rockey Storie, Kent Miller, John Dushinske, Dave Neubauer, Bill Fowler, Michael Bodnar, Joni Bollinger, David Badura, Janet Bowers, Craig Buehler, Bob Burleson, Allen Cohrs, John Fiscus, Steve Gilbert, Morgan Gottsponer, Stephen Herber, Dana Jones, Stephanie Korbelik, Bill Mangels, Penny McCarran, Vernon Mercaldo, Larry Pavlou, Eileen Peebles, Tony Perry, Loren Penkava, Ken Powers, Chris Sebesta, Frank Semin, Neal Shaw, Larry Swett, Kay Threet, Mike Ullom, Lisa Valley, Chuck Wilkinson, Jim Wiltfong, Jo Williams, Karen Lagerstrom, Bob Stevens, Sue Neville, Mike Barry, Martha Janousek, Kimberly Watson, Don Powell, Steve Weller, Michael G Stage, Tim Johanson, Laura Lantefield, Frank Oldenhuis, Jeff Nielsen, Robert Mason, Sean Bolks, Miriam Martinez, Lee Ferrell, John Williams, Reyna Cabrera, Theresa Branney, Jan Moore, Mike McGowan, Jeffery Fawcett, Lorraine Lindberg, Kevin Hyatt, Christine Stokes, TK Lohman, Michelle Lokay, Lindy Donoho, Steven Harris
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Michelle_Lokay_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Articles
X-Origin: LOKAY-M
X-FileName: mlokay.nsf

---------------------- Forwarded by Lorna Brennan/ET&S/Enron on 12/05/2000
11:09 AM ---------------------------

webmaster@cera.com on 11/30/2000 09:05:23 PM
To: Lorna.Brennan@enron.com
cc:

Subject: CERA Insight: The Gales


Message-ID: <11147907.1075852042740.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: jennifer.h.staton@us.andersen.com
To: stacey.w.white@enron.com
Subject: Additional April Power Questions
Cc: jennifer.stevenson@us.andersen.com, jennifer.l.muse@us.andersen.com,
	tatiana.v.waxler@us.andersen.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: jennifer.stevenson@us.andersen.com, jennifer.l.muse@us.andersen.com,
	tatiana.v.waxler@us.andersen.com
X-From: jennifer.h.staton@us.andersen.com
X-To: stacey.w.white@enron.com
X-cc: jennifer.stevenson@us.andersen.com, jennifer.l.muse@us.andersen.com, tatiana.v.waxler@us.andersen.com
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Sally_White_Nov2001\Notes Folders\Andersen requests
X-Origin: WHITE-S
X-FileName: swhite.nsf

Stacey,

Per my voicemail please find below three additional questions regarding
Schedule
C that we will discuss at our meeting on Friday.

   Was the booking of the $26 million Modesto option reversed?
   Does Schedule C still reflect the $11.4 million related to the BPA Federal
   Surplus Clause?  Is BPA delivering power under the contract?
   Have there been any subsequent changes in the values of power options since
   the first quarter?

If you have any questions, please call me at X6-6269.  Thank you.

Jennifer

*******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer*******************

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.  If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery
of
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by
reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not
consent
to Internet email for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.


Message-ID: <27061722.1075845093908.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: james.derrick@enron.com
To: sharon.butcher@enron.com
Subject: FW: Urgent Assistance
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Derrick Jr., James </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JDERRIC>
X-To: Butcher, Sharon </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Sbutche>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Derrick Jr., James\Derrick Jr., James\Sent Items
X-Origin: DERRICK-J
X-FileName: Derrick Jr., James.pst

For your file. Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Prince Chuks Okigbo" <okigbo2@messagez.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Prince+20Chuks+20Okigbo+22+20+3Cokigbo2+40messagez+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, April 30, 2001 5:43 PM
To:	Derrick Jr., James
Subject:	Urgent Assistance

                PRINCE CHUKS OKIGBO
		DIRECTOR: PROJECT IMPLEMANTATION
		NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
		FALOMO OFFICE COMPLEX, IKOYI - LAGOS			FAX: 234-1-7597374
                okigbo2@messagez.com

ATTENTION:

DEAR SIR,

A REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE/COOPERATION

IT IS WITH GREAT PLEASURE IN WRITING YOU THIS LETTER ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES AND ME.  YOUR PARTICULARS WERE GIVEN TO ME BY A MEMBER OF THE NIGERIAN EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL (NNPC) WHO WAS AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DELEGATION TO YOUR COUNTRY DURING A TRADE EXHIBITION.  I HAVE DECIDED TO SEEK A CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATION WITH YOU IN THE EXECUTION OF THE DEAL DESCRIBED HERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL KEEP IT AS TOP SECRET BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS AND THE PERSONALITIES INVOLVED.

WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES WHERE I WORK AS A DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND WITH THE COOPERATION OF FOUR OTHER TOP OFFICIALS, WE HAVE IN OUR POSSESSION AS OVER-DUE PAYMENT BILLS TOTALLING $30.5M USD (THIRTY MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATE DOLLARS) WHICH WE WANT TO TRANSFER ABROAD WITH THE ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION OF A TRUSTED FOREIGN FIRM OR INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL RECEIVE THE SAID FUND ON OUR BEHALF INTO ANY ACCOUNT PROVIDED TO RECEIVE SUCH FUNDS.  WE ARE HANDICAPPED IN THIS DEAL BECAUSE THE CIVIL SERVICE CODE OF
CONDUCT DOES NOT ALLOW PUBLIC SERVANTS LIKE US TO OPERATE OFFSHORE ACCOUNT, HENCE YOUR IMPORTANCE IN THE WHOLE TRANSACTION.

THE AMOUNT $18.6M USD REPRESENTED SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF MY MINISTRY BY A FOREIGN CONTRACTING FIRM WHICH WE THE OFFICIALS OVER-INVOICED DELIBERATELY. THOUGH THE ACTUAL CONTRACT COST HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, LEAVING THE BALANCE IN THE TUNE OF THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH WE HAVE GOTTEN APPROVAL TO REMIT BY TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER (T.T.) TO
FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNT YOU WILL PROVIDE BY FILING IN AN APPLICATION THROUGH MY MINISTRY FOR THE TRANSFER OF RIGHT AND PRIVILEGES OF THE FORMER CONTRACTOR TO YOU.

SINCE THE PRESENT NEW CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT OF MY COUNTRY IS DETERMINED TO PAY EVERY FOREIGN CONTRACTOR ALL DEBTS OWED, SO AS TO MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL FINANCIAL AGENCIES, WE HAVE DECIDED TO INCLUDE OUR BILL FOR APPROVALS WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME OFFICIALS FROM THE ALL THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY WHICH WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT PROCESS.

WE ARE SEEKING YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING A VITAL  ACCOUNT INTO WHICH WE CAN REMIT THIS MONEY BY ACTING AS OUR MAIN PARTNER AND TRUSTEE OR ACTING AS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR.  THIS WE CAN DO BY SWAPPING OF ACCOUNT AND CHANGING OF BENEFICIARY AND OTHER FORMS OF DOCUMENTATION UPON APPLICATION FOR CLAIM TO REFLECT THE PAYMENT AND APPROVALS TO BE SECURED ON BEHALF OF YOU.

THIS PROCESSES BEING AN UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PRINCIPAL TRUSTEE OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR. I HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF MY PARTNERS INVOLVED TO PROPOSE THAT SHOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO ASSIST US IN THE TRANSACTION, YOUR SHARE OF THE SUM WILL BE 30% OF THE TOTAL SUM, 60% FOR US AND 10% FOR TAXATION AND MISCELLANEO


Message-ID: <1114252.1075843916268.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:42:00 -0800 (PST)
From: robert.williams@enron.com
To: john.nowlan@enron.com
Subject: Re: First Gas
Cc: mike.mcconnell@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mike.mcconnell@enron.com
X-From: Robert C Williams
X-To: John L Nowlan
X-cc: Mike McConnell
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Mark_McConnell_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: MCCONNELL-M
X-FileName: mmcconn.nsf

6.1 says when FG becomes aware of changes it "shall" (so its mandatory)
inform us "as soon as practicable" after it becomes aware.  But then it says
these are "good faith estimates" and are not to give rise to any liability on
FG.  These two provisions seem inconsistent to me.   I think we should demand
that FG pay.  Our odds of winning on the point in arbitration are 50/50
(would hinge on what was parties' intent as reflected in negotiations).

John L Nowlan@ECT
11/01/2000 08:34 AM
To: Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mike
McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mike Brown

Subject: Re: First Gas

Comments from John in singapore.  raises this issue that they give us their
requirements and we MUSTmeet their requirements. On the other hand if their
requirements change we are responsible for demurrage , reselling or any other
actions which must be taken . Bob is this your understanding, or once they
give us their requirements they are responsible for costs incurred for any
changes due to a change in their requirements?
---------------------- Forwarded by John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT on 11/01/2000 08:30
AM ---------------------------

John Chismar
10/31/2000 08:38 PM
To: John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: First Gas

This is good news to me.  Hope that Siemen's does come thru and then we can
force the issue with FGH and show that they are being unreasonable in their
demand on the specs we currently have.

As to next delivery, the cargo just left ytdy and will arrive Batangas on
the 7th.  Sample of the shore tanks prior to loading was flown to Sing and
tested using Ashing. Metals and everything was OK.  We were rerunning last
night using direct injection.  Haven't seen those results yet.

As to storage issue.  Yes, we have seen some correspondence from FGH saying
that the cargo would not fit. Expect that it should just become an issue over
demurrage liability - ours vs FGH . However, you never know with this John
Russel guy - if the mkt were to fall away he could try to say he wants a
different price on the balance of the cargo. Expect it to price out at close
to $35/bbl.   We loaded minimum volume so a bit of a hit on frt.  As of ytdy
it looked like the ullage was going to be short by 8 to 15kbbls.  If so we
will be liable for demurrage.   Another point of interest on this one is in
all their forecasts they show usage everyday during the week.  However, ytdy
we hear from the Plant that they expect minimum usage (possibly zero) over
the next two days due to religious holidays - All Saints.  If so then the we
will probably go to about 30kbbls short of ullage and demmurage will increase
from a possible 4 days to 8 days @ $23k/day.  Could this be construed as
possible false info?

John

John L Nowlan
31/10/2000 21:20
To: John Chismar/SIN/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: First Gas

John, think you should be aware of this. Any comments?
---------------------- Forwarded by John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT on 10/31/2000 07:19
AM ---------------------------

Mike McConnell
10/30/2000 11:28 PM
To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT, John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: First Gas

FYI.
m
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT on 10/30/2000
11:32 PM ---------------------------

Robert C Williams@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
10/30/2000 01:40 PM
To: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: First Gas

Privileged and Confidential Attorney-Client Communication

Mike Brown, David Terlip, Ja


Message-ID: <20100212.1075851981466.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: alan.comnes@enron.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, jennifer.thome@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com,
	james.steffes@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com,
	dave.perrino@enron.com, ban.sharma@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com,
	ray.alvarez@enron.com
Subject: DWR Stranded Cost Update
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Alan Comnes
X-To: Jeff Dasovich, Jennifer Thome, Richard Shapiro, James D Steffes, Susan J Mara, Dave Perrino, Ban Sharma, Tim Belden, Ray Alvarez
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Richard_Shapiro_Nov2001\Notes Folders\California
X-Origin: SHAPIRO-R
X-FileName: rshapiro.nsf

Using information pulled together by Jennifer and BAN, I requested West
Tradings Risk/Structuring Group do a more careful analysis of the
above-market costs associated with the DWR contracts.  Attached is their
analysis.

In this analysis we examined only the executed contracts and NOT the
agreements-in principle.  (Only executed contracts were released by the state
in the last few weeks.) Also, gas-indexed contracts were examined on their
nongas costs only.  Since gas costs are a pass through on some contracts, we
excluded them as a conservatism; i.e., we did not ascribe costs to the gas
portion of the contracts since they will float with market costs over time.
These contracts were marked to market using current, applicable curves.
Finally we discounted at the LIBOR rate, which is around 4%/year.

The stranded cost under these assumptions  is approximately $10 billion.  The
spreadsheet shows the overmarket costs by contract.  Note: a negative
"mark-to-market" equals a positive stranded cost.

As before, this analysis is based upon Enron's confidential forward curves.
Approval from Tim Belden is needed before this analysis can be released.

Alan Comnes


Message-ID: <6357143.1075843949418.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:42:00 -0800 (PST)
From: robert.williams@enron.com
To: john.nowlan@enron.com
Subject: Re: First Gas
Cc: mike.mcconnell@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mike.mcconnell@enron.com
X-From: Robert C Williams
X-To: John L Nowlan
X-cc: Mike McConnell
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Mark_McConnell_June2001\Notes Folders\First gas
X-Origin: MCCONNELL-M
X-FileName: mmcconn.nsf

6.1 says when FG becomes aware of changes it "shall" (so its mandatory)
inform us "as soon as practicable" after it becomes aware.  But then it says
these are "good faith estimates" and are not to give rise to any liability on
FG.  These two provisions seem inconsistent to me.   I think we should demand
that FG pay.  Our odds of winning on the point in arbitration are 50/50
(would hinge on what was parties' intent as reflected in negotiations).

John L Nowlan@ECT
11/01/2000 08:34 AM
To: Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mike
McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mike Brown

Subject: Re: First Gas

Comments from John in singapore.  raises this issue that they give us their
requirements and we MUSTmeet their requirements. On the other hand if their
requirements change we are responsible for demurrage , reselling or any other
actions which must be taken . Bob is this your understanding, or once they
give us their requirements they are responsible for costs incurred for any
changes due to a change in their requirements?
---------------------- Forwarded by John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT on 11/01/2000 08:30
AM ---------------------------

John Chismar
10/31/2000 08:38 PM
To: John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: First Gas

This is good news to me.  Hope that Siemen's does come thru and then we can
force the issue with FGH and show that they are being unreasonable in their
demand on the specs we currently have.

As to next delivery, the cargo just left ytdy and will arrive Batangas on
the 7th.  Sample of the shore tanks prior to loading was flown to Sing and
tested using Ashing. Metals and everything was OK.  We were rerunning last
night using direct injection.  Haven't seen those results yet.

As to storage issue.  Yes, we have seen some correspondence from FGH saying
that the cargo would not fit. Expect that it should just become an issue over
demurrage liability - ours vs FGH . However, you never know with this John
Russel guy - if the mkt were to fall away he could try to say he wants a
different price on the balance of the cargo. Expect it to price out at close
to $35/bbl.   We loaded minimum volume so a bit of a hit on frt.  As of ytdy
it looked like the ullage was going to be short by 8 to 15kbbls.  If so we
will be liable for demurrage.   Another point of interest on this one is in
all their forecasts they show usage everyday during the week.  However, ytdy
we hear from the Plant that they expect minimum usage (possibly zero) over
the next two days due to religious holidays - All Saints.  If so then the we
will probably go to about 30kbbls short of ullage and demmurage will increase
from a possible 4 days to 8 days @ $23k/day.  Could this be construed as
possible false info?

John

John L Nowlan
31/10/2000 21:20
To: John Chismar/SIN/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: First Gas

John, think you should be aware of this. Any comments?
---------------------- Forwarded by John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT on 10/31/2000 07:19
AM ---------------------------

Mike McConnell
10/30/2000 11:28 PM
To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT, John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: First Gas

FYI.
m
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT on 10/30/2000
11:32 PM ---------------------------

Robert C Williams@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
10/30/2000 01:40 PM
To: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: First Gas

Privileged and Confidential Attorney-Client Communication

Mike Brown, David Terlip, Janice


Message-ID: <21916217.1075851006536.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:55:00 -0800 (PST)
From: steven.kean@enron.com
To: john.ambler@enron.com
Subject: Re: Envera Release
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Steven J Kean
X-To: John Ambler
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_Oct2001_2\Notes Folders\Attachments
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

I concur

	John Ambler@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	02/12/2001 09:32 AM

		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Envera Release

Steve,

Actually, EOL and other units of Enron have declined to participate and
specifically asked not to be included in the press release.  Confidentially,
this is a case of a developer overselling use of the Enron name for
approximately $5 million equity stake.  We have caught him in many half
truths and are uncomfortable going too far with this since we might get be
placed in an awkward position.  Because of EOL and our own concerns, we
intentionally toned it down.  I believe, in fact, that it is just another
platform as well as an investment.  Consequently, we would prefer to keep
this to the minimum of allowing them to issue a press release as included in
the contract.  Your concurrence would be appreciated.  I am available, if you
wish to discuss this further.

John

From: Steven J Kean@ENRON on 02/11/2001 02:22 PM
To: John Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:

Subject: Re: Envera Release

Looks fine as far as it goes ... but don't we want to explain how this fits
in to our strategy?  Is it just another platform for us to bring our products
and prices to the market?  We have said with respect to EOL that the
transaction is the goal not the platform.  Do we want to position this the
same way?  Examples of other press releases include our extension of pricing
on EOL to the two other platforms (including Houston Street) which we did a
couple of months ago.

	John Ambler@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	02/09/2001 05:35 PM

		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Habiba Bayi/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Cindy
Derecskey/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Envera Release

Enron Global Markets (EGM) has entered into a cooperative agreement with
Envera, a B2B network for the chemical and petrochemical industry.  As part
of this agreement  EGM will receive an equity interest in Envera.  The
contract allows Envera to issue a press release, subject to our approval.
Attached for your review and comment is the proposed release.  This release
has been heavily scrubbed.  It is significantly less exposure than in their
initial proposals.  Your early approval would be appreciated.

John


Message-ID: <681880.1075852606904.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
To: d..steffes@enron.com, j..kean@enron.com
Subject: RE: Call to SCE Regarding Negative CTC Credits
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Dasovich, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JDASOVIC>
X-To: Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JSTEFFE>, Kean, Steven J. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Skean>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items
X-Origin: Shankman-J
X-FileName: JSHANKM (Non-Privileged).pst

Unless there's an issue, I'll call Fielder first thing this morning.

I'm not seeing any upside to us rattling any sabers regarding bankruptcy, however.  We'd likely take a very significant reputational and political hit by taking them in---or suggesting that we would take them in, for that matter.

Reliant and Mirant have been rattling theirs for a very long time---with no concrete action to back them up.  They would of course love to have Enron "lead the charge."  I would recommend that we not play that card right now and let Reliant and Mirant go forward if they choose.

Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D.
Sent: Mon 9/17/2001 7:51 AM
To: Kean, Steven J.
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: FW: Call to SCE Regarding Negative CTC Credits

Steve --

If you have not called SCE yet, now may be a good time to do so (given the failure of the Legislature to resolve their problems).

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Williams, Robert C.
Sent:   Monday, September 10, 2001 9:44 AM
To:     Kean, Steven J.
Cc:     Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Sanders, Richard B.; Sharp, Vicki; Leff, Dan; Curry, Wanda
Subject:        Call to SCE Regarding Negative CTC Credits

Attorney-Client Privileged Communication

Steve,

Rick asked me to send you an email regarding a contact with top SCE management about our Complaint against SCE for removing our "Negative CTC Credits" from our current bills.   While we have filed a Complaint with the CPUC and are withholding payments, the CPUC may not act until it is too late to recoup our credits (because our contracts with have expired).  As you know, there is a view among some at the CPUC that the Negative CTC Credits can only be recovered as a bill offset, and is not a cash obligation.  Therefore, SCE restoring the credits to the bills may be the only means to realize our $125 million account receivable.

Today Richard Sanders reported that Reliant, Mirant and others were soliciting Enron's participation in an involuntary filing (to be filed possibly as soon as tomorrow).  Is there any merit in contacting SCE top management and offering to trade our nonparticipation for restoration of our Negative CTC Credits to our bills?

Please call me if you wish to discuss.

Thanks.


Message-ID: <2305270.1075851602687.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: alan.comnes@enron.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, jennifer.thome@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com,
	james.steffes@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com,
	dave.perrino@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com, ray.alvarez@enron.com,
	mark.palmer@enron.com, christopher.calger@enron.com,
	gray.calvert@enron.com, michael.etringer@enron.com,
	mark.fillinger@enron.com, jonalan.page@enron.com,
	jim.buerkle@enron.com, crystal.hyde@enron.com
Subject: RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update--CONFIDENTIAL
Cc: mohamed.elafandi@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mohamed.elafandi@enron.com
X-From: Alan Comnes <Alan Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate>
X-To: Jeff Dasovich <Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron>, Jennifer Thome <Jennifer Thome/ENRON@enronXgate>, Richard Shapiro <Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate>, James D Steffes <James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate>, Susan J Mara <Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON>, Dave Perrino <Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT>, Tim Belden <Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate>, Ray Alvarez <Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON>, Mark Palmer <Mark Palmer/ENRON@enronXgate>, Christopher F Calger <Christopher F Calger/ENRON@enronXgate>, Gray Calvert <Gray Calvert/SF/ECT@ECT>, Michael Etringer <Michael Etringer/ENRON@enronXgate>, Mark Fillinger <Mark Fillinger/SF/ECT@ECT>, Jonalan Page <Jonalan Page/ENRON@enronXgate>, Jim Buerkle <Jim Buerkle/ENRON@enronXgate>, Crystal Hyde <Crystal Hyde/ENRON@enronXgate>
X-cc: Mohamed Elafandi <Mohamed Elafandi/ENRON@enronXgate>
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Deleted Items
X-Origin: DASOVICH-J
X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst

Attached is the file that contains the details behind the table below.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Comnes, Alan
Sent:	Friday, July 20, 2001 2:07 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Calger, Christopher F.; Calvert, Gray; Etringer, Michael; Fillinger, Mark; Page, Jonalan; Buerkle, Jim; Hyde, Crystal
Cc:	Elafandi, Mo
Subject:	RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update--CONFIDENTIAL

All:

The DWR contract analysis has now been updated to include the gas-indexed deals.  The total out-of-market for executed contracts stands at $12 billion.  As you can see 7 counterparties hold contracts in excess of values indicated by recent curves by $500 million or more.

Thanks goes to Mo Elafandi for pushing this analysis through the structuring group.

GAC

Mark-to-Market of
DWR Contracts By Counter Party
($s, negative number means contract is above market)
Calpine	-$4,479,764,629
Coral	-$1,493,874,018
Williams	-$1,056,234,556
Dynegy	-$987,044,991
Allegheny	-$958,949,529
High Desert	-$674,251,353
Sunrise	-$551,894,408
Dynegy	-$471,117,317
GWF	-$432,339,191
Mirant	-$265,644,251
Constellation	-$165,463,637
El Paso 	-$128,334,382
Morgan Stanley	-$82,462,946
Alliance	-$75,169,854
PG&E Gen	-$63,165,408
Clearwood	-$41,423,566
IID	-$13,035,452
Duke Energy	-$2,052,733
Total Overmarket PV	-$11,942,222,221

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Comnes, Alan
Sent:	Friday, July 13, 2001 9:23 AM
To:	Comnes, Alan; Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James; Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave; Sharma, Ban; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray; Palmer, B. Scott; Palmer, Mark; Calger, Christopher F.; Calvert, Gray; Etringer, Michael; Fillinger, Mark; Page, Jonalan
Subject:	RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update

I am resending the same file as before (although to a larger group) and  need to make a correction regarding one assumption.  I am told the analysis does not yet include the gas indexed contracts.  We're working on getting them  included and when they are, the overmarket value will likely increase.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Comnes, Alan
Sent:	Wednesday, July 11, 2001 3:04 PM
To


Message-ID: <1444594.1075842028951.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:37:38 -0800 (PST)
From: john.zufferli@enron.com
To: garrett.tripp@enron.com
Subject: RE: Ontario Update
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Zufferli, John </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JZUFFER>
X-To: Tripp, Garrett </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Gtripp>
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \ExMerge - Zufferli, John\Sent Items
X-Origin: ZUFFERLI-J
X-FileName: john zufferli 6-26-02.PST

do you have the internet addresses and directory details put togethor yet

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tripp, Garrett
Sent:	Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:32 PM
To:	Milnthorp, Rob
Cc:	Zufferli, John
Subject:	RE: Ontario Update

Rob,

Markets
My marks show how we believe the market would trade if the market were open today, considering neighboring markets, transmission/wheeling costs, and fuel costs.  More of a expected liquidation value vs. the current Ontario market players bids and offers.

The market on 3yr 7x24 is being shown by a broker: $46-$48, and on the wholesale side I doubt the bid is actually there, or if so it is only a piece deep (50MW).

As a result, I would show an actually two way of $43-$47.50 and be coming from the sell side to the industrial customers who may pay in the $46-$47 range.

Peak, my 3yr mark is $52, but given the often bullish nature of new markets, I would be a bid for this summer and then look to offer the 3yr in the low fifties.  Upcoming changes in the Ontario system (Nodal vs. Zonal pricing) would have an effect on these term deals.

Staffing and Services

Trading
On the trading side, I will need to rehire personnel for the roles we laid off (an analyst and a temp IT programmer for fundies development).  Analyst wise, I am interested in bringing Brian Loy back if he is still available.  He has a good knowledge of the NUG contracts and is a good fit for a trading desk.  As our need for providing IMO Energy and Operating Reserve Services (bidding for specific NUGS and Dispatchable Loads) grows, it may be a good idea to bring Heather Mcillmurray over from the settlements group.  I have had initial discussions with Richard Crouch, Paul Devries and Heather on this matter.

Origination
This is your area of expertise. I would suggest two originators and an analyst.  If Dan Dorland is staying, he could continue on the origination side providing education to our new origination team, and being the analyst to assist the OEFC-NUG point personnel (Brian Loy's previous role).

IT
Implementing the trading and VMS systems is a very important issue where timing will become an issue. I would suggest a short term (6mo) contract with Mike Marryott to manage the system's side of this process and to integrate with the Estate and NETCO on trading and settlements systems (specifically David Posten's VMS team).  His location should be in Toronto.

Let's get on these issues as soon as possible.

On specific personnel, I would have liked to have retained Jeff Borg and Chris Gaffney.

Office Space
Tembec, our neighbor on this floor, has often indicated that they are interested in some of our office space. If that interest remains, we could examine leasing all of the space passed the flat screens (the origination desk/pod, one conference room and storage area, not to include our server room).  This would leave us with space for up to 24 people, two conference rooms, & kitchen.  As an alternative, we could consider moving upstairs into the Enron Direct location.

Potential Conflict of Interest
I would suggest releasing employees that will not be part of Estate or UBS relatively soon.  Specifically, the group that is leaving here, but will be participating in the Ontario market.  UBS Ontario information and resources are proprietary and confidential.  If personnel are being kept on to wind-down specific activities, their access to UBS power & gas curves should be restricted.

As time b