Mark Quaglia, an associate in the capital markets group from New York, will be flying here either tonight or first thing in the morning to review confirmations. He is planning to stay overnight on Thursday. Will there be a checklist for him to use in gathering information from the documents, or should we meet to develop something?
Answer: review of confirmations
George, it is probably worth speaking to them about the US assets - probably the smaller Virginia sites which are probably less core and may be great brownfield sites. I'm not sure we would have an interest in UK coal fired assets. I would speak to Sherriff on that one. However, I would caution that real value is created through RAPID brownfield development leveraging on Enron's development, electricity, coal and emissions talents. For ComEd and Homer City, Mission has already paid up for these assets based on gas being on the margin. Now that was before a lot of the run up so it may be worthwhile; however, I think it may be difficult to arb these guys. As well, I think it may be difficult to get the asset out of them - I'm not sure that they can turn their strategy or show a loss this quickly from a Wall Street point of view. We should probably take a shot at the smaller probably less core Virginia assets. Are they in QF, if so there may be upside in the deal from Duran's point of view.. Dave, given the rise in gas prices and gas being on the margin for a larger part of the load curve, coal assets or coal QF's may be great assets for us from a restructuring and power asset (expansion/brownfield) point of view. Have we looked at this? Are there many in the market? Regards
Answer: Edison Mission Energy
Hi Eric, I know this weekend will be a busy one for you but I just wanted to wish you an early Happy Birthday. Hope all is well with you and Shanna. I hope to see you in a few months. Love Aunt Bonnie
Answer: Happy Birthday
Russell, Please review the attached draft of the draft Enfolio Master Firm Purchase/Sale Agreement which has been drafted based on Exxon's comments as necessary changes before they will allow the Mobil plant to schedule gas under the terms of the October 1, 1995 Agreement. I have merely incorporated the credit language that was used in the October 1, 1995 agreement into this agreement and have attempted to make the other changes that Exxon was requesting. Question, is the parent company still Mobil Corp. for the purposes of the MAC. Do you still agree with the prior credit requirements as provided in the October 1, 1995 agreement, and if not, please provide me with your updated requirements as early as possible this morning so that I can incorporate into the agreement prior to presenting it to them for further negotiation later today. Lee, Please review the attached so that we can discuss which of their changes have been made, which we did not make and the reasons therefor. The quick points being: sentence at end of 2.3 which takes the place of their items 1-4; $0.15 to $0.05 in 3.2 and 3.4; item (iii) in 4.2 per their request #5 except I changes 30 business days to simply 30 days; I did not give them their request #6 except I did incorporate the last two sentences of their request; I attempted to give them all of their requested #7 except I reworded slightly for balance and the items we previously discussed; did not do request #8 because we will incorporate that in the Transaction Agreement; gave them their request #9, gave them their request #10 except I left in the "as is, where is" and the line they omitted when they retyped; did not do their item #11, added section 8.9 for termination of prior agreement; added their items #12 and #13 but modified as we discussed; otherwise I updated the contract and changed references for Buyer's Transporter to simply Company. Anything else? .
Answer:
Mobil Oil Corporation Master Enfolio Agreement