IN: This is an email
The information contained herein is based on sources that we believe to be reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete. Nothing contained herein should be considered as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial instruments discussed herein. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. As such, they may differ in material respects from those of, or expressed or published by on behalf of Carr Futures or its officers, directors, employees or affiliates. ? 2001 Carr Futures The charts are now in the most recent version of Adobe Acrobat 4.0 and they should print clearly from Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 or higher. Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0 may be downloaded for FREE from www.adobe.com. (See attached file: AGAMAIL.pdf) - AGAMAIL.pdf

What is the subject?

OUT: AGA Report 12/27

IN: This is an email
FYI. The California AG has announced that he is investigating conflict of interest charges against consultants who were involved with arranging DWR's long term power contracts. May be part of Davis' attempt to "re-negotiate" the contracts. There's been some assertions that, under California law, any contracts negotiated by consultants with financial conflict of interests must be nullified.

What is the subject?

OUT: California AG Investigating Consultants

IN: This is an email
Ed and Gerald, Brian and I spoke with Randy Curry of Bridgeline earlier today regarding a deal that we are trying to put together in order to sell the pad gas (in place) from Storage Caverns #13/#14. During that conversation, Randy indicated that: (i) ENA's default under its storage and transport agreements with Bridgeline impacts the Bridgeline partnership itself (and that there are certain side agreements that spell this out) and (ii) Bridgeline would reject any efforts by ENA to remove its gas inventories from storage facilities owned by Bridgeline. Bridgeline contends that ENA is permitted to pay all past due amounts and provide adequate assurances for future payment on its storage and transport deals as there is a bankruptcy order in place that allows the debtors to pay common carrier liens and warehouseman's liens. I asked Randy whether he had sought a lawyer's opinion regarding whether Bridgeline could be properly classified as a common carrier and/or warehouseman - he said that he had. Gerald please advise regarding Randy's assertions above. Ed, please let me know if you are already looking into either of these matters. If not, my guess is that you will be interested in hearing more. Regards

What is the subject?

OUT:
Bridgeline Partnership and Storage/Transportation Deals