Q: Mike/Steve - we have verified all of the volume information and our numbers are correct. Their numbers do not include prior period adjustments in the correct production month and our PVR volumes are correct and agree with the worksheets that they sent us even though they didn't use the correct volumes for the PVR on their worksheets. We still cannot figure out how they got to the amounts that they invoiced us. Please let me know if we are going to go back to those months that we underbilled them so that NNG can recoup that money. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks,
Propose a subject line
A: EPPI Schedules

Q: Steve, I think you may have heard a request last week re working closely with Dynegy. I think we just need to treat them like other counterparties. Basically, West Power would like to enter into arms length physical power and service transactions with Dynegy. My understanding is that Dynegy is a separate, unrelated party until the merger closes. Therefore, we can not "collaborate" with them commercially and our transaction policy is dictated by customary credit, legal and risk management procedures. Is this correct? If so, how do you feel about the following? An Enron customer wants to buy power and related services for one year. The customer requires Enron to post collateral. Enron does not want to post collateral but suggests that Enron can provide the product/services to Dynegy and Dynegy can then sell to the customer. The Enron marketer calls the Dynegy marketer and proposes a "back to back" transaction. Dynegy adds a small service fee, the Enron/Dynegy contract is executed and a Dynegy/Customer contract is executed. This type of deal happens frequently - it is usually driven by the third party having better credit, transmission access or a complementary service. We could do this with anyone, but the obvious choice is Dynegy - customers think it makes sense, and ultimately if we merge we have retained a customer. Do you think this works? Regards,
Propose a subject line
A: Potential Dynegy Transactions

Q: POSREP HOEGH GALLEON, DATE: May 2nd. 1200lt. A) Position at noon : N 36 13 W 003 15 B) Dist. from last noon : 96 n. miles (6 hrs. only) C) Dist. to go to next port: 4289 n. miles D) Eta next port : Port Said 6th. 1600lt. E) 1:Average sea/weather : Wind: W 5 Sea: W 4 2:Average speed : 16,00 knots / average RPM 70,6 3:B.O.G. consumed : Nil 4:F.O. consumed : 37 5:G.O. consumed : Nil Pls. note that different in remaining dist. from pos. report 30th. April and today's report be due to sailed distance after voyage interrupted and until voyage continued. (37,5 n. miles) Brgds Oe. Hansen Master E-mail: master.gall@hoegh.no Teleph: Inmarsat tel.no.+874 330853910 Fax : Inmarsat fax no.+874 330853913 Telex : Inmarsat B telex no.+584 330853915 Telex : Inmarsat C telex no.+584 430853910 (24hrs.watch)
Propose a subject line
A: Daily pos. report.

Q: On the attached list: CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company: Credit is opening them up for Can & US gas, which I am fine with. I already had them open for financial. Make sure they're shut down for physical power. Westpac: I just approved that one on the 1/5/01 list. There should be no changes from that list. Enron Australia has an ISDA Master in place with them, as does ENA, so we are OK with them transacting all financial, including all Australia financial.
Propose a subject line
A:
Counterparty Approval List for 1/9/01