affiliated company.
The loss recorded on the sale was approximately $14 million and is recorded as a loss on sale of assets and asset impairment expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
In the second quarter of 2002, the Company recorded an impairment charge of approximately $40 million, after income taxes, on an equity method investment in a telecommunications company in Latin America held by EDC.
The impairment charge resulted from sustained poor operating performance coupled with recent funding problems at the invested company.
During 2001, the Company lost operational control of Central Electricity Supply Corporation (‘‘CESCO’’), a distribution company located in the state of Orissa, India.
CESCO is accounted for as a cost method investment.
In May 2000, the Company completed the acquisition of 100% of Tractebel Power Ltd (‘‘TPL’’) for approximately $67 million and assumed liabilities of approximately $200 million.
TPL owned 46% of Nigen.
The Company also acquired an additional 6% interest in Nigen from minority stockholders during the year ended December 31, 2000 through the issuance of approximately 99,000 common shares of AES stock valued at approximately $4.9 million.
With the completion of these transactions, the Company owns approximately 98% of Nigen’s common stock and began consolidating its financial results beginning May 12, 2000.
Approximately $100 million of the purchase price was allocated to excess of costs over net assets acquired and was amortized through January 1, 2002 at which time the Company adopted SFAS No.142 and ceased amortization of goodwill.
In August 2000, a subsidiary of the Company acquired a 49% interest in Songas Limited (‘‘Songas’’) for approximately $40 million.
The Company acquired an additional 16.79% of Songas for approximately $12.5 million, and the Company began consolidating this entity in 2002.
Songas owns the Songo Songo Gas-to-Electricity Project in Tanzania.
In December 2002, the Company signed a Sales Purchase Agreement to sell Songas.
The sale is expected to close in early 2003.
See Note 4 for further discussion of the transaction.
The following table presents summarized comparative financial information (in millions) for the Company’s investments in 50% or less owned investments accounted for using the equity method.
## Table 0 ##
In 2002, 2001 and 2000, the results of operations and the financial position of CEMIG were negatively impacted by the devaluation of the Brazilian Real and the impairment charge recorded in 2002.
The Brazilian Real devalued 32%, 19% and 8% for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.
The Company recorded $83 million, $210 million, and $64 million of pre-tax non-cash foreign currency transaction losses on its investments in Brazilian equity method affiliates during 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.
Consumers purchases the balance of its required gas supply under incremental firm transportation contracts, firm city gate contracts and, as needed, interruptible transportation contracts.
The amount of interruptible transportation service and its use vary primarily with the price for such service and the availability and price of the spot supplies being purchased and transported.
Consumers’ use of interruptible transportation is generally in off-peak summer months and after Consumers has fully utilized the services under the firm transportation agreements.
Enterprises Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, is engaged primarily in domestic independent power production.
Enterprises’ operating revenue included in Continuing Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $383 million in 2007, $438 million in 2006, and $693 million in 2005.
Operating revenue included in Discontinued Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $235 million in 2007, $684 million in 2006, and $409 million in 2005.
In 2007, Enterprises made a significant change in business strategy by exiting the international marketplace and refocusing its business strategy to concentrate on its independent power business in the United States.
Independent Power Production CMS Generation was formed in 1986.
It invested in and operated non-utility power generation plants in the United States and abroad.
The independent power production business segment’s operating revenue included in Continuing Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $41 million in 2007, $103 million in 2006, and $104 million in 2005.
Operating revenue included in Discontinued Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $124 million in 2007, $437 million in 2006, and $211 million in 2005.
In 2007, Enterprises sold CMS Generation and all of its international assets and power production facilities and transferred its domestic independent power plant operations to its subsidiary, Hydra-Co.  For more information on the asset sales, see ITEM 8.
CMS ENERGY’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA — NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — NOTE 2.
ASSET SALES, DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS AND IMPAIRMENT CHARGES — ASSET SALES.
IndependentPowerProductionProperties: AtDecember 31,2007,CMSEnergyhadownershipinterestsin independent power plants totaling 1,199 gross MW or 1,078 net MW (net MW reflects that portion of the gross capacity in relation to CMS Energy’s ownership interest).
The following table details CMS Energy’s interest in independent power plants at December 31, 2007:
## Table 1 ##
For information on capital expenditures, see ITEM 7.
CMS ENERGY’S MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS — CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY.
CMS ENERGY CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) December 24, 2008.
The settlement includes a $20 million decrease in depreciation rates and requires that we not request a new gas general rate increase prior to May 1, 2009.
OTHER CONTINGENCIES — INDEMNIFICATIONS Equatorial Guinea Tax Claim: In 2004, we received a request for indemnification from the purchaser of CMS Oil and Gas.
The indemnification claim relates to the sale of our oil, gas and methanol projects in Equatorial Guinea and the claim of the government of Equatorial Guinea that we owe $142 million in taxes in connection with that sale.
CMS Energy concluded that the government’s tax claim is without merit and the purchaser of CMS Oil and Gas submitted a response to the government rejecting the claim.
The government of Equatorial Guinea has indicated that it still intends to pursue its claim.
We cannot predict the financial impact or outcome of this matter.
Moroccan Tax Claim: In May 2007, we sold our 50 percent interest in Jorf Lasfar.
As part of the sale agreement, we agreed to indemnify the purchaser for 50 percent of any tax assessments on Jorf Lasfar attributable to tax years prior to the sale.
In December 2007, the Moroccan tax authority concluded its audit of Jorf Lasfar for tax years 2003 through 2005.
The audit asserted deficiencies in certain corporate and withholding taxes.
In January 2009, we paid $18 million, which was charged against a tax indemnification liability established when we recorded the sale of Jorf Lasfar, and accordingly it did not affect earnings.
Marathon Indemnity Claim regarding F. T.  Barr Claim: On December 3, 2001, F.  T.  Barr, an individual with an overriding royalty interest in production from the Alba field, filed a lawsuit in Harris County District Court in Texas against CMS Energy, CMS Oil and Gas and other defendants alleging that his overriding royalty payments related to Alba field production were improperly calculated.
CMS Oil and Gas believes that Barr was paid properly on gas sales and that he was not entitled to the additional overriding royalty payment sought.
All parties signed a confidential settlement agreement on April 26, 2004.
The settlement resolved claims between Barr and the defendants, and the involved CMS Energy entities reserved all defenses to any indemnity claim relating to the settlement.
There is disagreement between Marathon and certain current or former CMS Energy entities as to the existence and scope of any indemnity obligations to Marathon in connection with the settlement.
Between April 2005 and April 2008, there were no further communications between Marathon and CMS Energy entities regarding this matter.
In April 2008, Marathon indicated its intent to pursue the indemnity claim.
Present and former CMS Energy entities and Marathon entered into an agreement tolling the statute of limitations on any claim by Marathon under the indemnity.
CMS Energy entities dispute Marathon’s claim, and will vigorously oppose it if raised in any legal proceeding.
CMS Energy entities also will assert that Marathon has suffered minimal, if any, damages.
CMS Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
If Marathon’s claim were sustained, it would have a material effect on CMS Energy’s future earnings and cash flow.
Guarantees and Indemnifications: FIN 45 requires a guarantor, upon issuance of a guarantee, to recognize a liability for the fair value of the obligation it undertakes in issuing the guarantee.
To measure the fair value of a guarantee liability, we recognize a liability for any premium received or receivable in exchange for the guarantee.
For a guarantee issued as part of a larger transaction, such as in association with an asset sale or executory contract, we recognize a liability for any premium that we would have received had we issued the guarantee as a single item.
The following table describes our guarantees at December 31, 2008:
## Table 2 ##
ratings, and general information on market movements for investment grade state and municipal securities normally considered by market participants when pricing such debt securities.
Foreign Corporate Bonds: Foreign corporate debt securities were valued based on quoted market prices, when available, or on yields available on comparable securities of issuers with similar credit ratings.
Common Stocks: Common stocks in the OPEB Plan consist of equity securities with low transaction costs that were actively managed and tracked by the S&P 500 Index.
These securities were valued at their quoted closing prices.
Mutual Funds: Mutual funds represent shares in registered investment companies that are priced based on the daily quoted NAVs that are publicly available and are the basis for transactions to buy or sell shares in the funds.
Pooled Funds: Pooled funds include both common and collective trust funds as well as special funds that contain only employee benefit plan assets from two or more unrelated benefit plans.
Presented in the following table are the investment components of these funds:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>AS OF AND FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,</td><td>2002</td><td>2001</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>Revenues</td><td>$2,832</td><td>$6,147</td><td>$6,241</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Income</td><td>695</td><td>1,717</td><td>1,989</td></tr><tr><td>Net Income</td><td>229</td><td>650</td><td>859</td></tr><tr><td>Current Assets</td><td>1,097</td><td>3,700</td><td>2,423</td></tr><tr><td>Noncurrent Assets</td><td>6,751</td><td>14,942</td><td>13,080</td></tr><tr><td>Current Liabilities</td><td>1,418</td><td>3,510</td><td>3,370</td></tr><tr><td>Noncurrent Liabilities</td><td>3,349</td><td>8,297</td><td>5,927</td></tr><tr><td>Stockholder's Equity</td><td>3,081</td><td>6,835</td><td>6,206</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> Location</td><td> Fuel Type</td><td> Ownership Interest   (%)</td><td> Gross Capacity   (MW)</td><td> Percentage of   Gross Capacity   Under Long-Term   Contract   (%)</td></tr><tr><td>California</td><td>Wood</td><td>37.8</td><td>36</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Connecticut</td><td>Scrap tire</td><td>100</td><td>31</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Michigan</td><td>Coal</td><td>50</td><td>70</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Michigan</td><td>Natural gas</td><td>100</td><td>710</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Michigan</td><td>Natural gas</td><td>100</td><td>224</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Michigan</td><td>Wood</td><td>50</td><td>40</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Michigan</td><td>Wood</td><td>50</td><td>38</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>North Carolina</td><td>Wood</td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td></td><td></td><td>1,199</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> Guarantee Description</td><td> Issue Date</td><td> Expiration Date</td><td> Maximum   Obligation</td><td> FIN 45   Carrying   Amount</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> In Millions</td></tr><tr><td>Indemnifications from asset sales and other agreements</td><td>Various</td><td>Indefinite</td><td>$1,445(a)</td><td>$84(b)</td></tr><tr><td>Surety bonds and other indemnifications</td><td>Various</td><td>Indefinite</td><td>35</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Guarantees and put options</td><td>Various</td><td>Various through September 2027</td><td>89(c)</td><td>1</td></tr></table>

Question: what is the implied value of nigen based on the 2000 acquisition?
Answer: 81.6667
Reasoning program: divide(4.9,6%)