Subject: "Production EnPower will be DOWN 9 - 12PM Tonight (11/14)".

Body: Dear All, EnPower Production will be down between 9PM - 12PM tonight. Please let us know if there is any problems, and if there is any delay in PortCalc or Excel ( Database related) processing. Thanks, Norman.

Subject: "Confidential: PG&E/Topock issue".

Body: As you know, current firm contracts on Transwestern provide for delivery of 250 MMcf/d of gas to Topock. In the context of the Gallup Expansion, Transwestern has entered into firm contracts for an additional 40 MMcf/d to Topock. Once the Gallup expansion is built, Transwestern will have a total of 290 MMcf/d of firm capacity under contract to the Topock delivery point: 40 MMcf/d more than PG&E has agreed to accept while PCBs continue to be present. Bill Cordes has asked what Transwestern's potential liability to shippers would be if PG&E's refusal to accept deliveries due to the continued presence of contaminants causes Transwestern to have to curtail firm service at PG&E/Topock. The legal answer is that Transwestern's tariff provides for a reservation charge refund but does not limit the damages that could be sought by a shipper. More specifically, Rate Schedule FTS-1 specifically provides for a reservation charge refund if Transwestern fails to deliver gas for a firm shipper. In December, January, February, July and August, the shipper is entitled to a reservation charge refund for all nominated and confirmed quantities not delivered. In all other months, the shipper is entitled to a refund only if deliveries fall below 75% of nominated/confirmed quantities for a period of 75 consecutive days. The tariff does not preclude a shipper from seeking other damages resulting from Transwestern's failure to provide service under an FTS-1 contract. A shipper whose firm service is curtailed would likely incur damages in addition to the reservation charge, including, for example, the cost of buying spot gas or damages resulting from the shipper's inability to fulfill contractual obligations. Such damages could be recovered in a breach of contract action. Not all shippers would incur such damages because some might be willing to take delivery of gas at alternate points if capacity is available at such points. Bill has asked Steve to work with me in quantifying our potential exposure. I could really use your help in putting a dollar amount on potential damages. Can we meet briefly to discuss this? I'm available after the Gallup meeting tomorrow a.m., or after lunch on Friday...or we can discuss a meeting time for next week. Thank you.

Subject: "EOTT Issue".

Body: On tuesday of this week after EOTT's staff meeting, I was made aware of a potential environmental estimate problem (too big). I am looking at ways of potentially dealing with the problem so that Lawrence will feel comfortable not booking a reserve in the 3rd qtr, which may have consequences on the plans we have underway to recapitalize the entity. This means coming up with an answer very quickly. There are a number of potential alternatives and I am sure there are more than I will attempt to lay out here. 1) We could simply make a contribution to EOTT for the sole purpose of environmental cleanup, and if unused will be returned. Seems like an expense item, but doable. 2) We could provide an insurance policy to EOTT to provide for environmental expenses in excess of the existing policy, for a fee. Better expense treatment (we get to manage the reserve) and appears to cover the EOTT issue. Because this is an affiliated deal, I guess it would have to go through the audit committee. Potentially the captive could be used. 3) Provide an accounting answer that might give EOTT a one-time gain to offset the one time reserve set-up. i.e., there is a least an argument that the recapitalization proposed will result in the extinguishment of a portion of the debt on the books represented by the API's. Since we are getting a conversion of less than a dollar for dollar deal, this should be doable. For Lawrence: Jim Bouillion has indicated that the insurance proposal may have merit, and so I will need some input from you regarding the coverage that exists now and what we would want going forward. If you want us to talk directly with Susan, we will. I am thinking that you are getting a quote for increasing the cap on the existing policy and that we could give you the same deal, or maybe even slightly better, to satisfy the audit committee. I am obviously looking for any help that I can get here, so if there any more ideas I would like to hear them. If you have questions, feel free to ask. Stan is aware of what we are discussing. 1) and 3) were his requests to review.

Subject: "Centana".

Body:
I left a message for Mike Richards to see if I could get the ball rolling. He was on the phone. Have you had a chance to speak with Greg?