Clement, Attached is a form of Enron Guaranty which has been marked up by the counterparty. The guaranty would back to LLC which are owned by ENA to develop power plants. The guaranty backs a Precedent Agreement and a long term firm transport agreement. Please review the comments and let me know what you think.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Enron Guaranty
Mark, Attached is the letter agreement we discussed. Please review. It is rough. Some issues to note: 1. The Kern PA cannot be assigned without their consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If Kern didn't like the fact that we are receiving assignment from 3 or 4 other shippers, they might withhold consent if they thought we were superceding their bid procedures. Not sure if they would, but it is a risk. 2. If the assignment is done after the producer executes the firm transport agreement, Kern could require to capacity to be released via capacity release at max rate. 3. I took a stab at the mark-to-market calculation. Probably needs more substance though. Lets discuss.
Answer: Kern River Bid Letter
Here is an email: I have had several conversations with EPNG about the possibility of ENA turning back capacity to satisfy 1) requests for new capacity in the Power Up 2000 project and 2) any possible capacity that EPNG may need to provide to satisfy incremental needs of full requirements customers as they convert billing determinants to Contract Demand quantities. In order to preserve our position, should I send a formal letter to Al Clark stating our desire to turn the capacity back? The Power Up 2000 deadline is noon, Thursday, August 2, 2001. They did not provide for turn back in the posting that is currently on the capacity system. While we do not know how EPNG will be forced to resolve their capacity issues in the receipt point allocation proceeding, I believe that a letter can help us preserve our position should we choose to turn back capacity under either scenario. We have approx. 54,000 of Block I and III capacity and 200,000 of Block III capacity. The Block II capacity is subject to PG&E recall - PG&E paid approx. $58 million for those recall rights in a settlement. Could EPNG pay a negotiated sum of money for the remaining value of the recall rights to fund the needs full requirement customers? I have to believe this option would be cheaper than adding new capacity. Leslie - could you help me with the letter? Many thanks! Stephanie
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Turnback of EPNG Capacity
Q: I've talked to Lee Ferrell about this, and it sounds to me like there are serious business reasons (i.e., cost and functionality) not to use the ENA system. THe "sharing of resources" issue worries me, but might be solvable if the right people are in Networks instead of ENA. I'll call you tomorrow. DF
Propose a subject line
A: Risk System Alternatives Next Steps
IN: What person(s) in London prepares credit for the English and Singapore financial transactions? At some point in the not so distant future, the Houson and London credit departments need to speak in order that each understands the "philosophy" behind credit analysis for the omnibus and master transactions. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards. Sara ps Congrats on your promotion! I didn't have a chance to speak with you after the offsite to shake your hand. Hope you enjoyed your weekend in Houston.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: London/Singapore credit
IN: This is an email
The attached details a recent transaction made to L-P. Let me know if anyone has questions. Mike Driscoll has already entered the transaction. Thanks, John

What is the subject?

OUT:
Q3 '02 sale to L-P