QUESTION: The phone call to Intermesa and Votorantim should emphasize the following points: 1. The transaction was never consumated. We have consistently stated that we do not consider the transaction a "done deal" until final documents are executed. 2. We are no longer willing to consider the proposed transaction. The reason is simple: the market has moved and they failed to act quickly. 3. All markets,pet coke markets in particular, are time sensitive. Because Votorantim has delayed in the execution of final documents, it accepted the risk that, over time, market prices would change and Enron would no longer be willing to sign a deal. 4. Again, we never had a final, enforceable deal. Their only claim is that we misrepresented to them our willingness to do the deal and therefor they didn't pursue negotiations with a third party. Our response is: we never made any misrepresetation and it is not reasonable to rely on our negotiations as a basis to forego discussions with third parties when Enron never sent them a binding offer.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Intermesa/Votorantim

QUESTION: Virginia Power has raised a question about wanting some type of guaranty or other form of performance security should an Enron LLC sign the contract. What can we propose (or exclude) under the contemplated structure? Thanks,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: VEPCO

QUESTION: Ben, We have a draft of the VEPCO "standard" interconnect, which has been internally reviewed by Mitch Robinson and Christi Nicolay. Would you like a copy? Nancy Wodka (Bracewell & Patterson, DC office) is outside counsel working on it as well. We have had no substantive discussions with VEPCO about this agreement at all. Let me know how you want to proceed. Thanks,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
VEPCO Interconnection Agreement