i didn ' t think i was finished negotiating we should discuss this asap .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by lorraine lindberg / et & s / enron on
08 / 10 / 2000 03 : 21 pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" richard riehm " on 08 / 10 / 2000 02 : 07 : 55 pm
please respond to
to :
cc :
subject : i didn ' t think i was finished negotiating
lorraine , i wanted to send you an e - mail about our negotiations regarding
tw / vv interconnect . i don ' t want you to feel like i am trying to renegotiate
something you think we agreed to last week .
when we were talking last week about concessions i was seeking from tw in
lieu of underperfomance at the vv interconnect , i gave the example of
reducing our alternate delivery rate on the jack rabbit agreement , but i
wanted to talk to you further about it . we agreed that you would call me
this week to talk about it . it was my intention that the negotiations were
not over yet , but that we need to talk further .
quite simply , a discounted rate on an alternate delivery point for an
agreement where i don ' t have a lot of volume does not do much for
burlington . the lack of tw ' s ability to accept nominated volumes from val
verde as mutually agreed to in the ipoa is a big and expensive issue to
burlington . it significantly limits our ability to operate the plant
efficiently , honor nominations of third party shippers on the system and it
is causing br to nominate extra volume into the epng system which is
constrained . all of these factors cost burlington a significant amount of
money .
some of the concession i am seeking include : the same discounted rate to
make alternate deliveries into epng as tw at blanco on agreement 25597 . the
same discounted rate for alternate receipts north of the laplatta compressor
station which in contrary to the language on agreement 25597 . i realize that
br would be alternate firm , but the agreement would be higher in the queue
than interruptible .
alternatively , what about terminating 25597 retroactively back to august 1 .
the agreement expires at the end of the year and i really don ' t need the way
it is currently structured . i have an it agreement for $ . 03 with all of the
flexibility that i am looking for on 25597 .
i have not sold this idea to my boss or anyone else in management . we have
had a conceptual meeting about this issue . it was agreed that our first
option was not to ask tw to spend a bunch of money to bring you into contract
compliance . instead we wanted to work with you to find some common ground .
the bottom line is that you have to give me something to take to my
management . please call me to discuss this . i really do want to keep these
negotiation up beat . i think past negotiations have not gone as well as you
or i would have liked . i really look forward to talking to you and working
something out that is agreeable to both companies .
richard riehm
v : 713 . 624 . 9074
f : 713 . 624 . 9630
email : rriehm @ br - inc . com
i didn ' t think i was finished negotiating
we should discuss this asap .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by lorraine lindberg / et & s / enron on
08 / 10 / 2000 03 : 21 pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" richard riehm " on 08 / 10 / 2000 02 : 07 : 55 pm
please respond to
to :
cc :
subject : i didn ' t think i was finished negotiating
lorraine , i wanted to send you an e - mail about our negotiations regarding
tw / vv interconnect . i don ' t want you to feel like i am trying to renegotiate
something you think we agreed to last week .
when we were talking last week about concessions i was seeking from tw in
lieu of underperfomance at the vv interconnect , i gave the example of
reducing our alternate delivery rate on the jack rabbit agreement , but i
wanted to talk to you further about it . we agreed that you would call me
this week to talk about it . it was my intention that the negotiations were
not over yet , but that we need to talk further .
quite simply , a discounted rate on an alternate delivery point for an
agreement where i don ' t have a lot of volume does not do much for
burlington . the lack of tw ' s ability to accept nominated volumes from val
verde as mutually agreed to in the ipoa is a big and expensive issue to
burlington . it significantly limits our ability to operate the plant
efficiently , honor nominations of third party shippers on the system and it
is causing br to nominate extra volume into the epng system which is
constrained . all of these factors cost burlington a significant amount of
money .
some of the concession i am seeking include : the same discounted rate to
make alternate deliveries into epng as tw at blanco on agreement 25597 . the
same discounted rate for alternate receipts north of the laplatta compressor
station which in contrary to the language on agreement 25597 . i realize that
br would be alternate firm , but the agreement would be higher in the queue
than interruptible .
alternatively , what about terminating 25597 retroactively back to august 1 .
the agreement expires at the end of the year and i really don ' t need the way
it is currently structured . i have an it agreement for $ . 03 with all of the
flexibility that i am looking for on 25597 .
i have not sold this idea to my boss or anyone else in management . we have
had a conceptual meeting about this issue . it was agreed that our first
option was not to ask tw to spend a bunch of money to bring you into contract
compliance . instead we wanted to work with you to find some common ground .
the bottom line is that you have to give me something to take to my
management . please call me to discuss this . i really do want to keep these
negotiation up beat . i think past negotiations have not gone as well as you
or i would have liked . i really look forward to talking to you and working
something out that is agreeable to both companies .
richard riehm
v : 713 . 624 . 9074
f : 713 . 624 . 9630
email : rriehm @ br - inc . com