agreement with eol just wanted to know i am working on your behalf . . .
i ' ll let you know what shelley says .
i really feel a need to keep the eol guys honest , so a full - fledged agreement
would probably not be overkill . but in reality , a term sheet is probably
almost as good .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by susan scott / et & s / enron on 01 / 19 / 2001
04 : 13 pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
susan scott
01 / 19 / 2001 04 : 08 pm
to : shelley corman
cc : tony pryor / et & s / enron @ enron , frazier king / fgt / enron @ enron
subject : agreement with eol
shelley , i understand that there is a concern about tw having a written
agreement with eol without the other two pipelines having an agreement .
from my perspective , tw needs an agreement because tw is uniquely situated .
here ' s why .
- my understanding is that tw is the only pipeline that has been asked to pay
a fee .
- the developers michelle lokay and i have been talking to seem very
uncertain about exactly what the fee covers .
- $ 50 , 000 is a lot of money to transwestern .
- transwestern has a recent history of not getting what it thought it had
bargained for from affiliated companies , and would appreciate our trying to
protect them .
i am not trying to create extra work for anyone . i am just a little confused
about why a contract for tw would necessitate a contract for the other 2
companies . if you could help me understand , i would appreciate it .
if the consensus is that we feel strongly that tw should not have a written
agreement , then i would at least insist on a detailed letter of intent or
term sheet . this would force both sides to think ahead about what is
expected . ( and , as a practical matter , it ' s highly unlikely that we ' re going
to take legal action for breach of contract against an affiliate . . . )
thanks .
agreement with eol
just wanted to know i am working on your behalf . . .
i ' ll let you know what shelley says .
i really feel a need to keep the eol guys honest , so a full - fledged agreement
would probably not be overkill . but in reality , a term sheet is probably
almost as good .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by susan scott / et & s / enron on 01 / 19 / 2001
04 : 13 pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
susan scott
01 / 19 / 2001 04 : 08 pm
to : shelley corman
cc : tony pryor / et & s / enron @ enron , frazier king / fgt / enron @ enron
subject : agreement with eol
shelley , i understand that there is a concern about tw having a written
agreement with eol without the other two pipelines having an agreement .
from my perspective , tw needs an agreement because tw is uniquely situated .
here ' s why .
- my understanding is that tw is the only pipeline that has been asked to pay
a fee .
- the developers michelle lokay and i have been talking to seem very
uncertain about exactly what the fee covers .
- $ 50 , 000 is a lot of money to transwestern .
- transwestern has a recent history of not getting what it thought it had
bargained for from affiliated companies , and would appreciate our trying to
protect them .
i am not trying to create extra work for anyone . i am just a little confused
about why a contract for tw would necessitate a contract for the other 2
companies . if you could help me understand , i would appreciate it .
if the consensus is that we feel strongly that tw should not have a written
agreement , then i would at least insist on a detailed letter of intent or
term sheet . this would force both sides to think ahead about what is
expected . ( and , as a practical matter , it ' s highly unlikely that we ' re going
to take legal action for breach of contract against an affiliate . . . )
thanks .