This is the content of an email: Russell: Since late 1998, we have been trying to put in place a Master between ENA and the above counterparty. We currently have a Master dated July 1997 between ECC and Pancanadian Petroleum Limited and Pancanadian wants to pretty much duplicate this Master. Here are the credit terms of the late 1998 drfat that we sent them which I need for you to tell me are still okay: No Credit Support Providers Cross Default - $50,000,000 for ENA and $25,000,000 for them Additional Event of Default - occurrence of a MAC and the failure to provide Perfprmance Assurance in accordnace with annex A. MAC is defined as Enron's rating going below BBB- and their Net Worth falling below $133,000,000 opr their Funded Debt to Net Worth being more than 1 to 1 They want to defined the "control" concept in Affiliate as ownership of more than 50% of equity. This term is used in the Setoff language and limits the possible entities that could be Affiliates on our side and their side Forms of collateral are cash and LC's Collateral Thresholds are $10,000,000 for us and $3,500,000 for them Let me know what you think. Carol

Subject: Pancanadian Energy Services

This is the content of an email: This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. sperry@vmac.com

Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Relay)

This is the content of an email: Carol: I spoke with Richard Peterson (retail side). Apparently we were dealing with the exploration side of the company last year. We agreed to (1) mark up the Flying J form AND (2) reissue the Industrial Master that had been negotiated last year (with our form changes). John Scales (exploration side) wouldn't agree to the MAC at the last minute. Do you want to handle? Just let me know. Sara

Subject: Flying J

This is the content of an email: Question for the team: If it appears that we may have land which may not be able to stay off balance sheet, is it preferable to have the land held by a different LLC than the project LLC, with a lease to the E-Next/OBS compliant project co? If that is the case, what about the possibility of burdening the land with some low dollar hard costs? I don't have anything in particular in mind, it is more of a theoretical question. Thanks,
Subject: LLC structure for power development