Write a subject line for this message:

John, I have reviewed the contracts (Asset Agreement and the GPA) and here are my= thoughts regarding your request. In short, the agreements do not specific= ally address capacity being needed by third parties. ENA does have a right= to all of their capacity free and clear of all encumbrances. Last year we= did discuss this issue (the interruptible VNG customers wanting to take re= leases of VNG capacity), but at the time Jim Scabareti indicated that he wa= s going to play hard ball with his interruptible shippers in year 2 (i.e. n= ow), since VNG was really getting tight on assets due year-on-year load gro= wth and no new capacity additions. He gave the assets up last year because= he did not want to have any noise at the VSCC when the VSCC was considerin= g the affiliate relationship between VNG and AGLES. However, as I reflect = on it now, it seems to me that VNG (aka Sequent) really needs to weigh heav= ily the decision to release any assets to third parties through this winter= (interruptible or otherwise). At a minimum, any releases should be done r= ecallable based on weather forecasts based on some HDD amount. The profit = sharing provision is the same for years 1 and 2. My suggestion is that you do the following: (1) remind Sequent about the de= liverability issue facing VNG and (2) develop a plan with Sequent for talki= ng to Customers, so as to minimize any VSCC risk since the VSCC thinks Sequ= ent is VNG's asset manager. =20 Mark Breese is back in the office tomorrow and I will confer with him as we= ll. You might seek Jeff Hodge's thoughts as well. If you have any questio= ns, please ask. Regards,
VNG transportation capacity