Attached please find the September 2001 report (Exhibit No. 7 format) showing current month activity in the System Levelized Account (SLA). Information for this report comes from data provided by Gas Accounting Dept. Several items to note for this time period: Monthly MIP decreased from $2.8522 for August to $2.0535 for September. The cash portion of the SLA increased $3.9 million and the future liability portion decreased $7.3 million for a net decrease of $3.4 million. The two major components of the change in cash were: Purchases of 1.5 Bcf @ $2.25 for $3.4 million (cash out). Shippers longed Northern 0.26 Bcf @ $3.29 for $0.8 million (cash out). This file contains reports for the months of January through September. To print the desired month's report, simply click on the respective tab. pmb
Answer: Monthly Report on SLA Activity
Here is an email: Juniper GP, LLC This limited liability company was formed in Delaware on November 5, 2001. Particulars are: Parent Company: To be confirmed. Business: Acquisition of 100% of the general partnership interest in Juniper Energy L.P. Employees: No Foreign Qualifications: None Company No. : 1791-JUNP Information not yet confirmed by LLC Agreement. Please circulate this information to all interested parties in your group. For more information, see attached Corporate Data Sheet. PLEASE NOTE: Mary Heinitz - copy of evidence being sent by interoffice mail Angie Ramirez - please apply for FEIN Sylvia Hu - Minute Book and one seal have been ordered Lillian R. Bailey Administrator Corp. Services EB4863 Ext. 33577 Telephone 713/853-3577 Fax 713/646-8007 lillian.bailey@enron.com
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Juniper GP, LLC - New Formation
Q: Due to the slowdown in trading, I will be concentrating on leaving positions for RT to trade around. These will keep you in the market and give some flexibilty and decision making responsibility. This will make more sense, once you inherit the position. The following positions need to be watched for monday: 1. We are short to Mirant (on behalf of Frontera) for hour ending 6 only. We need to buy 50 mw's and schedule this with Mirant Real Time. They are expecting and have agreed to this trade. This is energy that Frontera owes them on a prescheduled basis. If you are working Sunday night, check in early with Mirant to make sure they are aware of this trade. It is very common that they get a bad "handoff" and are unaware of this transaction. Give them plenty of time to work this out. We schedule this in the portal as a buy from X and a sale to Mirant. In Enpower, buy from X and sell to Frontera (under the Teco Services book). Enter this as a flat transaction, ie buy for $20 and sell to Frontera for $20. 2. The Ercot Asset book is long 5 mw's for offpeak Monday at $11.25. Sell this or leave to the pool, as necessary. I will be long this power offpeak for the balance of next week 10/16-19. I think that Saturday morning will come in strong, as we are getting some cooler weather. I think also that some larger units are coming off line, which will put upward pressure on the offpeak. Each member of the group needs to tell me what positions they want. Next day onpeak is trading for $20.5, offpeak is trading $11.25. Where is the value??? Lets trade it up! JMF
Propose a subject line
A: positions for Monday
IN: Bob and I just spoke with Steve Susman. I tried to mention the points you asked. Here are his comments: 1. F&J probably could not simply send us our files back and put itself in a position to be adverse to us with Arthur Anderson. Susman believes that there is a "hot potato" rule that prevents F&J from doing so. 2. That being said, Susman doesn't care if F&J represents Arthur Anderson or anyone else potentially adverse to us in the actions he is handling. 3. Susman would not, however, agree to a broad advance ethical waiver, as proposed by F&J. He does not believe such waivers are effective. Susman would agree to a waiver once we were advised who F&J wanted to represent. I don't know whether F&J would agree to this or not. 4. Susman recognizes that we cannot force F&J to take on the new Mariner matter, and that this is ultimately a risk/benefit decision for us to make, and that we may have to agree to terms that we otherwise wouldn't agree to. Parenthetically, I have received no comments on F&J's proposed waiver letter. Under the circumstances, from his standpoint, Bob is inclined for us to get the best deal on the waiver letter that we can with F&J, but that if F&J won't budge, that we take something along the lines of what they have given us (Bob, let me know if I have mischaracterized your thoughts). From my standpoint, I unfortunately think there are some parts of the letter that we must have changed. This would be to the extent that the letter purports to have Enron Corp. agree to bind all the Enron entities, and to the extent that it involves Enron's agreement to what will happen after the Dynegy merger (as I set out in my earlier e-mail). My recommendation would be, as set forth in my earlier e-mail, that only the Enron entities currently being represented by F&J sign it and be bound by it, and to remove the language regarding what Enron would agree to after the Dynegy merger. I also find the advance ethical waiver language repugnant, but could agree to it if the other modifications mentioned could be made. I do not know whether F&J would be willing to make these changes or not. Our biggest problem right now is time-management. I know that Mariner wanted to make a decision by today as to who to use. I am willing to confer with Dutton ASAP to see what F&J would agree to, and if he can agree in principle, to send him a proposed draft agreement. I believe he is out of the office but is checking his voice-mail. Please let me know what you want me to do. Britt

Generate a subject line.

OUT: In re F&J Representation
Mary, we are under a good deal of commercial pressure to execute the power = swap with Ontario Power Generation by the end of 3rd quarter. I understand= the swap is for 3 years after Ontario Market Opening, with Enron as fixed = price payor (Cdn. $50) and OPG as floating price payor. I also understand = that OPG has provided their comments on the documentation, and would apprec= iate if we made it a top priority to review and respond to their comments a= s soon as possible. I understand that there may be a significant number of= matters ongoing for quarter end, as well as because of the recent events. = However, the draft ISDA has been outstanding for a considerable period and= , as mentioned, we have commercial pressure to execute the transaction. If= it would expedite matters, perhaps we could document under an Omnibus GTC = (although OPG will likely have similar comments which will need to be addre= ssed) or we could assign another lawyer to completing the documentation, in= cluding Chris Gaffney. Please let me know. Regards, Peter
Answer:
Ontario Power Generation Swap