re : onondaga louise : i ' d like to get some time with you tomorrow or wednesday at your convenience to further discuss onondaga . we are effectively at a cross roads with respect to monetization activities , and i ' d like to get some guidance . please let me know if you might have some time . also , i hope the site sale information i sent you yesterday for your board presentation met your needs . please let me know if i need to do any follow up on that , or if you have any questions on the project status information i e - mailed you for today ' s weekly origination meeting . the meeting heather and i had with williams went well , and i can give you an update on that as well . regards , ben - - - - - original message - - - - - from : kitchen , louise sent : monday , september 24 , 2001 12 : 29 pm to : jacoby , ben ; duran , w . david subject : re : onondaga hold off until i talk to wes - - - - - original message - - - - - from : jacoby , ben sent : wednesday , september 19 , 2001 7 : 12 pm to : kitchen , louise ; duran , w . david subject : fw : onondaga louise / dave : we have been talking to accounting over the past several days regarding onondaga as i mentioned in our meeting yesterday . for whatever reason , our interest in onondaga ( through the cash flow interest agreement ) is viewed by accounting as a receivable . from a commercial standpoint , this is incorrect , but at the end of the day , it doesn ' t really matter . billy ' s e - mail below basically states that because of how the onondaga interest has been classified , we should reduce the $ 7 . 9 million by the $ 1 . 1 million payment received last week , but then readjust the value of the asset . based on our internal valuation , and based on the written indication we received this week from a prospective purchaser , adjusting the value of the " receivable " to $ 10 million ( after application of the $ 1 . 1 million payment received ) would be very conservative . this would net a gain of $ 3 . 1 million for q 3 . with your concurrence , i will work with billy to support the adjustment of onondaga to $ 10 million ( and therefore the gain of $ 3 . 1 million ) . i will advise him to credit the gain to my profit center unless you tell me otherwise . please let me know if you have any questions . regards , ben - - - - - original message - - - - - from : fleenor , william sent : wednesday , september 19 , 2001 5 : 57 pm to : jacoby , ben subject : re : onondaga ben , based upon the review of the cashflow interest agreement , partnership agreement and numerous discussions with internal accountants we have determined that it is inappropriate to recognize the cash payment received as income . the basis that is carried on our books currently ( approx . $ 7 . 9 mm ) represents a long - term receivable that resulted from the tracking account arrangement under the original gas supply agreement between ena and oclp . in addition , this asset does not qualify for the mtm or fair value accounting models . the payment received from oclp based on the cashflow interest agreement should reduce the long term receivable that is currently recorded on our books . however , it is also our understanding that in the prior year a management decision was made to reduce / write - off $ 8 million of this long - term receivable based upon the best information available at the time . as stated below our internal sales efforts now support the conclusion that the prior year write down was more than it should have been . this would suggest that we need to effectively adjust the write down of the asset to reflect what we truly believe is collectible . this will be considered a change in accounting estimate will flow through the current quarter earnings if management makes the decision that this asset was incorrectly written down in the prior year . this basically gets you the the same accounting treatment as mtm . a few things need to be noted : 1 ) support will need to be provided that substantially supports the adjustment of our valuation of this asset . please provide this to me 2 ) you will have to resolve the geography of the income that results from the increase in the asset . supposedly corp took the write down . . . . may cause problems . 3 ) somebody will have to accept responsibility for the valuation exposure that this will create . it is my understanding that rac and credit are not involved . 4 ) we need to be able to explain what basis we used in determining the write down in prior year . we will probably get questioned by aa . please call me if you would like to discuss . regards , billy - - - - - original message - - - - - from : jacoby , ben sent : tuesday , september 18 , 2001 9 : 37 pm to : fleenor , william ; vos , theresa subject : onondaga please book the payment received from onondaga as q 3 income . in this morning ' s meeting with louise , i have advised her that our internal valuation and sales efforts support this payment being taken as income . please advise as i need to update her tomorrow . thanks much . ben