Ed the 6" project you are talking about is a small project independant of
Rogas where a 6"line will be constructed from North Coles and run above
ground, if possible, to a tie in approx. 1 mile away.  We will need a waiver
for this.  There  wont be any by pass crossing concerns and  only ocal
notifications due to the efforts to run the pipe above ground.  The reason
for constructing above ground is to minimize surface disturbance.  Im sure
that one of the conditions of the approval for this construction actiivty is
that EOTT wil be required to maintain integrity of the pipeline to ensure no
releases.....inspections, reporting etc....  Ill keep you in the loop on
this.....

From: Edward Attanasio@EOTT on 02/01/2001 11:32 AM PST
To: Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Kenny Maltby/Bakersfield/Eott@Eott, Bob Jacobs/Long_Beach/Eott@Eott, Matt
Hughes/Houston/Eott@Eott

Subject: Re: No. Coles Levee to Rogas Interconnect - Permit & Property Owner
R equirements

Thanks for the update.

I can indeed confirm that we have the 2081 in place.  (But, to be precise, it
was not ARCO Energy's 2081; it was a 2081 that was issued in the first
instance to Koch that was assigned to us.  So, make sure the 2081 you are
working off of is the Memorandum of Understanding between fish and game and
Koch, and not a permit issued to Arco.)

Also, according to Kenny M, West Coast Environ is working on some other
permit for the 6-inch line (I don't recall exactly what it is, but Kenny can
tell you.  Unfortunately, the handoff from Gary to you folks seems to have
left us in a bit of disarray, so it'll all have to be tracked down this
way.)  Pehaps you can crack the whip on West Coast re this also?  Thanks.
--ETA

	Larry Campbell@ENRON
	02/01/01 10:39 AM

		 To: Matt Hughes/ET&S/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Matt.Hughes@enron.com, AHart@kensmall.com, derickson@kensmall.com,
Edward.Attanasio@enron.com, KevinS@kensmall.com, matt.hughes@enron.com,
John.Shafer@enron.com, David.Roensch@enron.com, rich.jolly@enron.com,
Bob.jacobs@eott.com, William Kendrick/OTS/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: No. Coles Levee to Rogas Interconnect - Permit & Property Owner
R equirements

With respect to the environmental clearances and permits for the Rogas
project, here is where we presently stand.

2081 State Fish and Game Permit.  According to the North Coles facility, Ed
Attanasio has a letter from Koch authorizing transfer of the ARCO Energy 2081
permit to EOTT.

10A1B Federal US Fish and Wildlife Permit for EOTT.  I have checked on the
status of this permit  which will be issued to EOTT by  the USFWS and am in
the process of trying to push it along.  The wheels of govt. sometime move
pretty slow.  We are waiting for written approval from USFWS to the Kern
Water Bank approving of EOTT using the KWB 10A1B permit  use for the Rogas
project only.  this letter is expected by the end of next week.   I will keep
everyone updated.

The biologist is ready and waiting for a start date to begin her surveys and
has stated that the cold temperatures may cause her to delay her sampling and
survey work as mandated by the Department of Fish and Game.

The issue of the water by pass channel crossing is still in progress.  We
will need approval under 404 Nationwide Permit, 1603 streambed alteration
notification approval and State Reg Board Authorization.  I have contacted
the consultant Gary has been using for assistance with these applications and
they are sending  applications to my attention.  The signed and completed
packets  will be going out fed-x tomorrow.  I would expect a 30 day waiting
period before these documents are signed by the agencies, however, because
these approvals apply only to the by pass channel feature, this should not
delay initial construction of the project .

I have prepared the stormwater permit application for construction activities
which are required for construction activities greater than 5 acres.

Matt Hughes
01/31/2001 08:29 AM

To: Edward Attanasio/Remote/Eott@Eott, Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: No. Coles Levee to Rogas Interconnect - Permit & Property Owner
R equirements

---------------------- Forwarded by Matt Hughes/ET&S/Enron on 01/31/2001
09:29 AM ---------------------------

Kenny_Maltby@eott.com on 01/30/2001 08:09:53 PM
To: Matt.Hughes@enron.com
cc: AHart@kensmall.com, derickson@kensmall.com, Edward.Attanasio@enron.com,
KevinS@kensmall.com, matt.hughes@enron.com, John.Shafer@enron.com,
Larry.Campell@enron.com, David.Roensch@enron.com, rich.jolly@enron.com,
Bob.jacobs@eott.com

Subject: Re: No. Coles Levee to Rogas Interconnect - Permit & Property Owner
R equirements

1) We have the permit and drawing for boring the Kern County Water Agencies
Cross Valley Canal. I will also contact Helt Engineering for the canal
profile and Soils Engineering for the soil analysis.

2) Permits for Hwy 43 and Interstate 5 are state Permits through Caltrans,
at this time we have not received the permits. Helt Engineering has
repeatedly made calls but are having difficulty getting anyone to answer
the phone. I have asked them to notify Caltrans of who is the contractor
for the project. Alan if you can provide me with the name of the boring
contractor I will provide that information at the same time. If I do not
have an answer soon I will make a trip to Fresno and see what I can find
out. Matt, Floyd Little is the contact for Caltrans, you probably remember
the problems you had when you tried to contact him.

3) Gary Fuller put West Coast Environmental in charge of obtaining a permit
for crossing the Kern River By-Pass channel from the Army Corp of
Engineers. As we discussed last week the application for the permit had not
been filed. Larry Campell with the environmental department has been asked
to contact West Coast Environmental for the status of the permit
application. I will provide the drawing, permit and permit requirements
when we receive them.

4) I will gather copies of the conditions and requirements from the water
districts and provide that to Alan.

5) We have not received the Fish and Games approval at this time. When we
receive it and have final approval from our environmental and legal
departments I will provide the Permit to Alan.

As you know we are at the States mercy on obtaining these permits. We are
shooting for the two week starting date as mention earlier. I will keep you
informed.

Matt.Hughes@e
                    nron.com             To:     "Hart, Alan"
<AHart@kensmall.com>
                                         cc:     "Matt Hughes
(E-mail)"
                    01/30/01             <matt.hughes@enron.com>,
Kenny
                    07:24 AM             Maltby/Bakersfield/Eott@Eott,
"Erickson, Doug"
                                         <derickson@kensmall.com>, "Small,
Kevin"

<KevinS@kensmall.com>,
                                         Edward.Attanasio@enron.com

                                         Subject:     Re: No. Coles Levee to
Rogas
                                         Interconnect - Permit & Property
Owner R

equirements

Once we secure all these permits and schedule work, we will provide copies
to you.

Kenny/Ed--
Are we still on track to start in <= 2 weeks?

"Hart, Alan" <AHart@kensmall.com> on 01/26/2001 06:53:27 PM

To:   "Matt Hughes (E-mail)" <matt.hughes@enron.com>
cc:   "Kenny Maltby (E-mail)" <kenny.maltby@eott.com>, "Erickson, Doug"
      <derickson@kensmall.com>, "Small, Kevin" <KevinS@kensmall.com>

Subject:  No. Coles Levee to Rogas Interconnect - Permit & Property Owner R
      equirements

Matt,

In order for Ken Small Construction to plan and schedule the work in the
most economic manner we would like the following information in hand prior
to starting field construction work.

1) Copy of permit from Kern County Water Agency for the Cross Valley Canal
with the drawing that was submitted for permit application.

2) Copy of permit from Kern County for the Enos Lane crossing with drawing
that was submitted for permit application, also I need to get KSCI listed
as
contractor on permit.

3) Copy of permit from Caltrans for the I-5 crossing with drawing that was
submitted for permit application, also I need to get KSCI listed as rider
along with bore contractor.

4) Copy of permit from Army Corps of Engineers for the Kern River crossing
with drawing that was submitted for permit application, along with any
conditions required.

5) Copy of Fish & Game, Kern Water Bank Authority, Buena Vista Water
Storage
and West Kern Water requirements or conditions for construction of the
pipelines.

Your help in letting KSCI know the status of the above permits as soon as
possible will also help to set up a workable schedule that we can utilize
for our construction purposes.

Alan R. Hart
Senior Estimator
Phone (661) 391-2139
Pager (661) 329-7691
Fax (661) 393-0651
email: ahart@kensmall.com


[IMAGE]
     Special Offer from Midwest Living Magazine
 Get an extra year  of Midwest Living at no extra cost! It's the best of the Midwest ? subscribe  now  and get a FREE YEAR!
Dear scott,   Greetings from  the editors at Better Homes and Gardens! Each recipe has been tested in  the Better Homes and Gardens Test Kitchen.   [IMAGE]Cheese-Stuffed  Knockwurst  Wind bacon around cheese-stuffed knockwurst then grill.  Serve in buns and accompany with chips and relishes.         For a printable version  of this recipe, click  here.    For more recipes,  click here.   New this week:   Savory  Cilantro
[IMAGE]     5 fully  cooked knockwurst or fully cooked bratwurst (about 1 pound)   2 ounces  Monterey Jack cheese with caraway   2 green onions,  thinly sliced (1/4 cup)               5 slices  bacon   5 French-style  rolls or frankfurter buns, halved lengthwise   Catsup, mustard,  and/or pickle relish (optional)

     1. Cut a lengthwise slit in each knockwurst or bratwurst about  1/2 inch deep. Cut cheese into 5 strips that are 2-1/2x1/2x1/4-inches.  Insert a cheese strip and some of the green onion into each knockwurst.  Wrap a slice of bacon around each knockwurst. Fasten the bacon with wooden  toothpicks.      2. To  grill by indirect heat, in a covered grill arrange preheated coals around  a drip pan. Test for medium heat above the pan. Place knockwurst, cheese  side up, on the grill rack over the drip pan. Cover and grill for 8 to  10 minutes or until bacon is crisp and cheese is melted.  3. To  serve, place knockwurst in French-style rolls or buns. If desired, serve  with catsup, mustard, and/or pickle relish. Makes 5 servings.  Make-Ahead Tip:  Stuff and wrap sausage with bacon. Cover and refrigerate up to 1 hour  ahead of grilling.  Nutrition facts  per serving: 473 calories, 34 g total fat, 13 g saturated fat, 77  mg cholesterol, 1129 mg sodium, 21 g carbohydrate, 1 g fiber, 19 g protein,  3% vitamin a, 5% vitamin c, 15% calcium, 13% iron.
  Special  Promotion from Better Homes and Gardens  [IMAGE]Better  Homes and Gardens New Cookbook Here's  America's best-selling cookbook! This all-time classic covers everything  you'll ever need to know about cooking. 1,259 delicious recipes  in this latest edition! This is the book that teaches America how  to cook! Ringbound Edition. Click here   to purchase.

 [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Our seal assures you  that every recipe has been tested in the Better Homes and Gardens
  Test Kitchen. This means that each recipe is practical and reliable,  and meets our high standards of taste appeal.
 Your Email: [scott.hendrickson@enron.com] is on the mailing list. If you do not wish to  continue receiving the BHG Daily Recipe via e-mail, please edit  your newsletter preferences  or see instructions below to unsubscribe offline.    If you have any questions or concerns, you can e-mail us at support@bhglive.com     To subscribe to the BHG Daily Recipe, please go to bhg.com  Member Center    To update your e-mail address, please go to the bhg.com Member Center   and  click on the link to update your profile. You'll need your current e-mail  address and password to log-in. If you've forgotten your password, there  is a link in the Member Center to have it e-mailed to you.   If you prefer to unsubscribe offline, please send a letter or postcard  with your name, complete mailing address, e-mail address, and the names  of the newsletters from which you wish to unsubscribe to: Newsletter Unsubscribe,  c/o Meredith Corporation LS 205, 1716 Locust St., Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3023    Copyright 2001 Meredith Corporation. All rights reserved.

[IMAGE]


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Murray, Kevin
Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 11:32 AM
To:	Marks, James; Weil, Timothy; Juvane, Danilo; Gottfredson, Bryan; Dolezal, Regan; Sandford, Marcie; Videtto, Melissa; Culotta, Lindsay; Hopkins, Stephanie; Brady, Edward; Brad Ruhoff (E-mail)
Subject:	FW: A little humor

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Gonzalez, Andrea
Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 11:25 AM
To:	Murray, Kevin; Quinn, Kristin; Sprott, Kendell; Gurrola, William; Czuppon, Christopher; Kiani-Aslani, John; Yosowitz, Michael; Munoz, Victor; Mccracken, Greg; Heintzelman, Pete
Subject:	A little humor

TOP TEN USES FOR THE NEW ENE BLDG

 1. HEALTH CLUB
 2. LOFTS
 3. PUBLIC STORAGE
 4. HOTEL FOR SEC INVESTIGATION TEAM
 5.SKY RING BAR AND BROTHEL
 6. SCRAP METAL
 7.RETAIL CENTER
 8. MINIMUM SECURITY FEDERAL PRISON FOR EXECUTIVES
 9.PROP IN NEXT HOLLYWOOD ACTION FLICK: IMPLOSION
 10.PERMANENT REMINDER TO ALL INVESTORS: SELL WHEN THEY BUILD A MONUMENT TO SELF

Andrea Gonzalez
ENA Generation Investments
713-345-8128


----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 11/29/2000 10:59 AM -----

	Mark Palmer@ENRON
	11/29/2000 10:45 AM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Notice of Press Conference today

I'll send a copy of the suit filed against the generators as soon as I get it.

Mark
----- Forwarded by Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron on 11/29/2000 10:44 AM -----

	"Leopold, Jason" <Jason.Leopold@dowjones.com>
	11/29/2000 10:40 AM

		 To: "'mark.palmer@enron.com'" <mark.palmer@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Notice of Press Conference today

Hello Energyphiles:

OK, perhaps it was inevitable.  But it is now official.  A team of San
Diego's best anti-trust and class action attorneys has been assembled to
take on the electric generators and marketers in California state court in
an effort to return the electricity overcharges that have battered San
Diego and the rest of California this year.    A press conference will be
held to discuss the consumer class action lawsuit to be filed today.

WHEN:   11am - noon

WHERE:    550 West C  St.  (b/t Columbia & India)
  Suite 1810
  Law Offices of Levine, Steinberg, Miller & Huver
  619-231-9449

WHAT:  Copies of the filed complaint will be made available at that
time.  UCAN's   executive director and the attorney team will be
available
to answer questions   about the complaint.   We are hopeful that
we can
post the complaint to the   UCAN web site later today.
***********************************
"Time is the best teacher, except for the fact that it kills off its best
students"

Michael Shames
Executive Director
Utility Consumers' Action Network
1717 Kettner Blvd.  Suite 105
San Diego, CA  92101
619-696-6966
mshames@ucan.org


My first choice is Carrin Patman or Bruce Oakley at Bracewell--Tel. no.
713-223-2900. My second choices are Ron Welch and Knox Nunnally at Vinson And
Elkins #713-758-2222. Lastly, Barrett Reasoner at Gibbs and Bruns
#713-650-8805. Of course if TransCanada is already a defendant, I might
recommend different counsel depending on which judge they drew. If Duane has
any questions please have him call me at 713-853-5587.

	Peter Keohane
	Sent by: Sharon Crawford
	01/22/2001 04:08 PM

		 To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: duane_alexander@transcanada.com
		 Subject: Texas Litigation Counsel

Richard, a friend of mine at TransCanada Energy is looking to retain
Houston-based litigation counsel, and was wondering who we could recommend.
He assures me that the matter does not involve an Enron entity.  Accordingly,
could you please provide me with a name and contact for litigation counsel
you would recommend at V&E, Bracewell Patterson, Andrews & Kurth or otherwise?

Many thanks,
Peter


Any officer can sign for Enron -- generally speaking, we like to have the BU head sign.  Michelle

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sellens, Nigel
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:08 PM
To:	Cash, Michelle
Subject:	FW: Received fax from 03 5219 4610

Michelle, here is a faxed version of Nick O'Day's contract.  Who should sign it for Enron.

Thanks

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	FACSys Fax Connector (EULON-MSCNX03P)
Sent:	06 November 2001 09:41
To:	Sellens, Nigel
Subject:	Received fax from 03 5219 4610

Sender: 		03 5219 4610
Received: 	06 November 2001 09:36
Pages: 		10
Serviced By:  	FACSys server EULON-APFX1P (Device 2)
Routing Info: 	38895

-------------- Fax Image -------------
 << File: 637478.tif >>


I'm checking with Steve.

Thanks,

Kay

"Campbell, Carolyn" <CCampbell@KSLAW.com> on 04/04/2001 05:58:50 PM
To: "'kay.mann@enron.com'" <kay.mann@enron.com>
cc: "Keffer, John" <JKeffer@KSLAW.com>

Subject: New Proposal by Delta on HSR Fee Split

Kay:

I advised Greg Lang that Enron had approved our tentative proposal on
splitting the HSR fee, with Enron bearing a maximum of $25k.

Bill Blumenthal (our HSR expert) has now spoken with Dave Burns (Paul
Hastings' HSR expert), and Bill reports back that Mr. Burns now agrees that
there is exposure to an HSR filing requirement upon exercise of the
put/call.  Apparently, Mr. Burns had not previously focused on the transfer
of the remaining 20% interest in the LLC pursuant to the put/call in his
analysis.  They also agree that the filing fee will be determined by the
fair market value of the assets in the LLC at that time.

Greg Lang called after his report from his HSR expert and now proposes the
following alternatives:

1.  Straight-up 50/50 split of fees (with no $25k maximum on Enron's
contribution), so that the parties are equally incentivized to minimize the
fee; or

2.  Draft additional provisions whereby Enron consents in advance to some
structure such that upon exercise of the put/call, the value of the assets
owned by the LLC are as low as possible.  This may involve transferring one
or more of the turbines to another LLC wholly owned by the LLC.  (Greg
thinks that the value of the assets of wholly-owned subsidiaries need not be
included in the threshold calculation, but I have not confirmed this).  I
indicated that this could be viewed by the FTC as a subterfuge for avoiding
filing requirements.  He called back and subsequently advised that the
solution may then involve transferring each of the turbines to a separate
LLC owned 80/20 by PPL and ENA (to be in compliance with GE requirements)
and that Delta would have a business justification for doing this on the
basis of flexibility to put these turbines in various different projects.

Please advise of your thoughts on this issue.  Thank you.

Carolyn M. Campbell
King & Spalding
713-276-7307 (phone)
713-751-3280 (fax)
 <mailto:ccampbell@kslaw.com> ccampbell@kslaw.com

                    Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
all copies of the message.


If thats the case, screw this expensive friggin' deer lease and lets devote all funds to the well stocked RV unit.  We'll just drive around 'til Sunday.

C.

----- Original Message -----
From: Fenner, Chet
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 7:05 AM
To: 'Brian Constantine'; EriK Wollam; Fenner, Chet; chad knipe; Joe Parks
Subject: RE: Privacy Please

These are key employees and a good mission statement for the Deer Lease
Winnebago business plan Erik and I were developing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Constantine [mailto:brianc@saltgrass.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:48 AM
To: EriK Wollam; Chet Fenner; chad knipe; Joe Parks
Subject: FW: Privacy Please

Men...this is a classic. My favorite is #20...
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bruder
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:43 AM
To: Brian Constantine; Jeff Stover; Jim Doxakis; Ken Pierce; Matt
Hanifen; Daniel Hill; Terry Turney
Subject: FW: Privacy Please

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelli Servello [mailto:k.servello@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:04 PM
To: John Servello; john servello; Ohsonnyboy@aol.com; Kollen Nelson; BJ;
msteed@pdq.net; Dwayne Miculka; Dave Kirk; Michelle Kerbow; Larry R
Kerbow; Rob Fuchs; Ed Fuchs; Frogman; Bart Frames; Earle Dardar;
cory@multisignals.com; Chris Bruder; BigJoe@JoeBeitler.com
Subject: Fw: The Perfect Woman!!!!!!!!


Louise

I've spoken with Bryan - your understanding is correct - there will initially
be circa 250 products total spread across the product types (which are
defined by the country of incorporation of the reference credit).

He is hoping to grow this quickly.

M

Louise Kitchen
18/01/2000 16:57
To: Louise Kitchen/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT, Bryan Seyfried/LON/ECT@ECT, John
Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Julia Murray/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael R Brown/LON/ECT@ECT, Edmund
Cooper/LON/ECT@ECT, Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Rod Sayers/LON/ECT@ECT, Janine
Juggins/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve W Young/LON/ECT@ECT, David Weekes/LON/ECT@ECT,
David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT, Elena Kapralova/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark
Dilworth/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: Credit Trading OnLine - Results of Legal Due Diligence and Risk
Memo

Bryan

Mark told me that in the meeting (legal trading weekly conference call, Paul
spoke of a different 250 products per country?  Is this right?  This has some
serious implications.  Could you let us know as this hasn't come up before I
had assumed your 250 products were the same whatever the country.

Regards

Louise

Louise Kitchen
01/17/2000 07:07 PM
To: Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT, Bryan Seyfried/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: John Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT, Bryan Seyfried/LON/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T
Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Julia Murray/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael
R Brown/LON/ECT@ECT, Edmund Cooper/LON/ECT@ECT, Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Rod
Sayers/LON/ECT@ECT, Janine Juggins/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve W Young/LON/ECT@ECT,
David Weekes/LON/ECT@ECT, David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT, Elena
Kapralova/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Dilworth/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: Credit Trading OnLine - Results of Legal Due Diligence and Risk
Memo

Thanks very much for your memo Paul it is very helpful.  I attach below for
completeness the To Do list put together by Elena in order to put Credit on
EnronOnline.
There are two remaining issues which require further thought:-

1.  How do we want to display Credit on a long term basis on EnronOnline.
For the short term, we can put credit out there but the number of updates
will be restricted.  Using Jay's best guess on a slow network connection the
initialization process will take upto 4 minutes and on a normal connection
250 updates every 30 seconds would prevent people from trading.   So we do
have some scaling issues? Our model doesn't really function for simultaneouse
changing of hundreds of products so really we need to actually get a much
better specific on how many updates you envisage.   Do you really envisage
that many updates?  Also we haven't yet experienced fast updates which we
will do when FX joins the system.

2.  We have approximately 4000 guest id and passwords?  Can these see credit
pricing from a due diligence perspective.

Elena will be leaving the EnronOnline group at the end of this week and Mark
Dilworth will be our main point of contact in Dave's absence.  Any questions
please do not hesitate to call me (713 853 3488).

Louise
Outstanding Credit Derivatives Issues	Action	Status	Resolved by
1. Redraft Credit Derivatives GTCs 	Decide how many GTCs are needed ) 1, 2 or
6 ) and prepare the draft(s) accordingly with following issues in
consideration:
	? Change &Effective Date8 language to refer to the dates on the website.
	? Cofidentiality issue ) legal advice is to leave it out. Bryan Seyfried to
make decision on commercial basis, whether not to include it at all, or
include the softer clause, for ex. that counterparties cannot use Enron name
when disclosing transactions, details.
	? Include &bad faith8 provision to prevent sleeving.
	? Decide what entities should enter transactions on Enron side ) ECTRI for
Europe and ENA for North America (?)
	? Get Tax sign-off		Paul Simons/Edmund Cooper/Slaughter&May
2. Translation of GTCs	Decide whether translations are needed and, if so, prepare
them:
	? Nordic GTC into Norwegian
	? Swiss GTC into German		Paul Simons/Edmund Cooper/Slaughter&May
3.  Withholding Tax Issue	Do further research and take a view regarding US
Withholding Tax issue, i.e. that US entity can only transact with another US
entity.		Jannine Juggins/ Paul Simons
Legal Validation of Long Descriptions	Make sure that Long Descriptions are aligned with
GTCs.		Edmund Cooper
4. Legal Review of Paper Confirmations	Modify language in the paper confirmations according
to GTCs and Long Descriptions.		Edmund Cooper
5. Translation of Paper Confirmations	If necessary, prepare the following translations:
	? Nordic Conf. - into Norwegian
	? Swiss Conf - into German		Paul Simons/Edmund Cooper
6. Draft Consent Paragraph to be included in the Marketing Letter 	? Draft a
consent paragraph to be added to the Marketing Letter that goes to Ref.
Entities companies
	? Get PR approval		Paul Simons/Edmund Cooper
7. Confidentiality Lists	Identify counterparties in the Confidentiality Lists (all
Enron entities) that will be used as underlying Reference Entities and get
their written consent.		Paul Simons/Edmund Cooper/Mark Taylor
8. Confidentiality Procedures	Prepare Procedures and educate Enron traders that
confidential information about Ref. Entities is not misused.		Paul Simons
9. Prepare Counterparty List	Prepare the Counterparty List and forward it to Legal
(for capacity check) and Credit for approval.
	Note: List must contain exact entity name that will be entering Cr. Deriv.
transactions		Bryan Seyfried
11. Capacity Check on Counterparties	Check counterparties, constitutional documents to make
sure that they have legal power and authority to trade Cr. Deriv.
	Note: Finish counterparties must be &professional investors8.		Paul Simons/Edmund
Cooper/Mark Taylor
12. Get Counterparties List Approvals	Bryan to chase Credit/Legal/Traders to get there
sign-off.		Bryan Seyfried
13. Complete Reference Entities List	? Add information on country of incorporation
and abbreviation (up to 12 characters) to the existing Ref. Entities List.
	? Get Traders, Legal, Credit and Tax (?) approval.		Bryan Seyfried/Raj Sharma
14. Attach Cr. Deriv. GTCs to all Cr. Deriv. transactions confirmations	Make sure that Back
Office procedures are amended accordingly.		Bryan Seyfried/Barry Pierce
15. Investigate whether companies from Canada and Germany can be used as Ref.
Entities	For time-being Canadian and German companies won,t be used neither as Ref.
Entities nor they will be able to enter trades as counterparties. However,
being Ref. Entities ) needs further investigation.		Paul Simons/Edmund Cooper/Mark Taylor
16. Legal Budget	Estimate approx. legal fees budget for Cr. Deriv.		Paul Simons
17. Short Descriptions	Change Short Descriptions:
	? Product Type should read: &US Credit Dflt8, i.e. not &US Cr Dflt Swap8
	? Upload Underlying Credits (Ref. Entities) abbreviation according to Raj,s
List.		Elena Kapralova/Mark Dilworth
18. Online Test	Set up Cr. Derivatives in the Test environment and make test
trades.		Bryan Seyfried and Cr. Deriv. traders
19. Set up New Database	If decision on placing Cr. Derivatives as a separate page is
final, start working on coding a separate Cr. Derivatives Database.		Mark Dilworth to
co-ordinate with IT
20. Sigma Factors	Set-up Sigma factors on the Product Type level.		Mark Dilworth to
co-ordinate with Credit
21. Risk Calculation	Set-up methodology for risk calculation on underlying Ref. Entities.		Mark
Dilworth to co-ordinate with RAC

Legal Deliverables ) Credit Derivatives

Deliverable 	Jurisdiction	Delivery Date 	Status	Delivered by
1. GTCs 	All 			Slaughter&May
2. Long Product Descriptions Validation	All			Edmund Cooper
3. Translation of Norwegian and Swiss GTCs into German and Norwegian if
necessary	Norway, Switzerland			Slaughter&May
4. Paper Confirmations	All			Edmund Cooper
5. Translation of Norwegian and Swiss confirmations into German and Norwegian
if necessary	Norway, Switzerland			Slaughter&May
6. Consent Paragraph in the Marketing Letter	All			Paul Simons/ Edmund Cooper
7. Confidentiality Procedures	N/A			Paul Simons
8. Further info on Canadian and German companies as Ref. Entities	Canada, Germany			Paul Simons/
Edmund Cooper

Credit Derivatives ) Resolved Issues

Resolved Credit Derivatives Issues	Action	Status	Resolved by
1.
2.
3.

Paul Simons
01/17/2000 02:01 PM
To: John Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT, Louise Kitchen/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Bryan Seyfried/LON/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Julia
Murray/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael R Brown/LON/ECT@ECT,
Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edmund Cooper/LON/ECT@ECT, Justin
Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Rod Sayers/LON/ECT@ECT, Janine Juggins/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark
Frevert/LON/ECT@ECT, Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve W Young/LON/ECT@ECT, Shirley
A Hudler/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Weekes/LON/ECT@ECT, David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT,
Elena Kapralova/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Credit Trading OnLine - Results of Legal Due Diligence and Risk Memo

NOTE - GIVEN THE PROPOSED LAUNCH DATE OF 24 JANUARY 2000 FOR THIS PRODUCT,
THIS NOTE IS INTENDED TO SERVE BOTH AS A SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF OUR LEGAL
DUE DILIGENCE AND AS A RISK MEMO

As you know, we have carried out legal due diligence in the eight countries
where it was intended the credit product  would initially be traded via
EnronOnLine - namely, the UK, the US, Canada, Finland, Germany, Norway,
Sweden and Switzerland.  Under the terms of the credit product, on the
occurrence of  a bankruptcy with respect to a specified third party (the
Reference Entity) the Seller of the product (which could be either Enron or
its online counterparty) will pay a fixed, pre-agreed cash sum in an agreed
currency to the Buyer. (It should be borne in mind that this product differs
in a number of ways from the more conventional credit derivatives traded in
the international markets. This means that a change in the nature or terms of
our product or the introduction of alternative credit products will likely
change the analysis below.)

Set out below is an overview of where we have come out on the more
significant legal issues.  I am also attaching a two page "Executive Summary
of Legal Advice" prepared by outside counsel which highlights the significant
legal issues/risks in each country and which should be read in conjunction
with this note mail. As you will see, the Executive Summary does not focus on
issues we raised which are "all clear" from a legal perspective, so as to
keep the summary to a sensible length  (but there was plenty of good news
too!).  Where a legal issue has been identified, I have either set out below
what action is to be taken, or not addressed it further on the basis that, on
the advice of foreign counsel, the risk is not very substantial or unlikely
to materialise. Therefore, where no comment is made below in relation to a
risk highlighted in the attached summary, please assume that the legal risk
is one which, in our view, it is reasonable to take.

A.  Countries in which the credit product can be traded in January 2000

 Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US

B.  Countries in which launch of the product via EnronOnline will need to be
delayed

 Canada, Germany (reasons set out below)

C.  General Issues (applicable in all countries)

The credit product is fundamentally different from the usual energy and
related products we trade and so gives rise to new or increased legal risks
of a general nature:

(i)  Capacity - We will not be able to assume generally that our
counterparties will have the legal power and authority necessary to trade the
product and so will need to check each counterparty's constitutional
documents before allowing them to trade the product online.  This applies to
almost all entities (eg corporates, municipalities, insurance companies) in
all countries.  Some entities may lack the power to trade under the general
law (in which case we will not be able to deal with them at all) or under
their constitutional documents (in which case they will need to amend their
constitutional documents if they wish to trade).

The check need only be made once at the beginning of the credit trading
relationship and so can be added to our procedures.  It is not a particularly
onerous job and will increase the cost of this business only incrementally.

(ii)  Confidentiality - We will need to put in place procedures to ensure
that we are not misusing confidential information about our business
counterparties on whom we are offering credit protection.  Misuse can occur
both in pricing the product and trading it.  The procedures will not include
formal Chinese Walls separating the credit traders from our other traders or
the credit department (a point we have managed to agree with both UK and US
counsel following very detailed discussions).  The procedures will include
(a) the use of a Restricted List in both the US and Europe (similar to the
procedure currently used in Houston); and (b) practical steps to ensure that
confidential information derived from other areas of our business and which
we are not entitled to use (eg because it is the subject of a confidentiality
agreement) is not imparted to the credit traders.  In addition, where Enron
has an especially close relationship with a prospective reference entity, or
otherwise has confidential information relating to such an entity, we will
need its written consent before offering protection on that entity.  Without
such consent, there will be an unjustifiably high risk of being sued by that
entity for breach of confidence.

D.  Country Specific Issues

(i)  Canada - There is a substantial risk that the product will constitute
insurance business, constituting an offence and rendering contracts in the
product unenforceable against our counterparties.  We should try to resolve
this issue with the Canadian authorities before launching the product in
Canada.  Timeframe for clearance is highly uncertain since it is not clear
which Canadian authority would take jurisdiction of the matter.

(ii)  Germany -  Again the issue is insurance.  The risk is higher than in
Canada and so Germany should be excluded initially.

(iii)  Norway - There is a material risk that the credit product could be
regarded as gaming in Norway, in which case trades would be void and
unenforceable.  The normal way to mitigate this risk in Norway is by using a
"substantial professional effort" to satisfy ourselves that a trade is being
entered into for valid commercial purposes (normally hedging) by our
counterparty. Clearly, it will not be possible to take such steps on a trade
by trade basis in the context of EnronOnline.  At a minimum, we should
therefore ensure at the outset of the online trading relationship in this
product with each Norwegian counterparty that there is a commercial logic
behind its trading this product type.

(iv)  Switzerland -  If the credit product is the main purpose of our trading
relationship with a counterparty, we should check with the Swiss supervisory
authority whether the product constitutes insurance (the position being
unclear).  If a trade is insurance, it can be terminated by the counterparty
(which is obviously of greater concern if Enron is the Buyer) and an offence
will be committed since Enron is not authorised as a Swiss insurer.  However,
I understand that the initial group of counterparties will be existing
business relationships, in which case we can parallel path this issue.

(v)  US (New York Law)

(a) CFTC regulation - by structuring the product either as a swap or an
option (and meeting certain other conditions) we can rely on exemptions under
the US Commodities Exchange Act.

(b)  US securities laws - there is a small chance that the credit product
constitutes a "security" under US securities laws (please see attached
Executive Summary).  However, SEC regulations allow the public offering of
securities to "accredited investors" which will allow us to deal with
investors having at least US$5 million in assets.  Since most of our
counterparties will be fairly large, sophisticated players, this test should
not impede the business.

(c)  Insider trading - US counsel have advised that the risk of insider
trading occurring as a result of the product being characterised as security
(see (b) above) is relatively remote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Please feel free to call me on x36566 if you would like to discuss this
project further.

Best regards

Paul


Sara,
David asked me how the review of Direct Trading was going?
Thanks. Sheila


I talked with Chairman Schriber this morn to give him a heads-up on the
meeting Barbara and I are having with the Governor's Chief of Staff in
follow-up to Ken Lay and Governor Taft's conversation on transmission
access.  (We are going to try and get Taft to push for Ken Lay to be the
keynote speaker at the NGA in February).

Schriber indicated that beginning next month, he plans to make transmission
issues a top priority since he believes that to be the largest impediment to
competition.  He thinks we need to create a secondary market and that all the
acamedicians are making this more complex than it needs to be.  We also
talked about about the native load language in the settlements.  I  offered
to have Enron come in and talk to him about our vision on how the
transmission system should work and he was very enthusiastic and said he
would give us a full day if we needed it.

My assessment is that Schriber is a little naive about the ease with which a
solution can be developed but that he is genuinely interested in being
proactive and taking a position which potentially may not be very different
from ours.  (The meeting with him will help ferret that out).

My recommendation is that we set up a meeting with him for mid-December and
go through our issues in a Transmission101 format, since I think he needs to
go up the learning curve.

Schriber indicated he would try to attend the Nov. 14th meeting in Indy, but
may be conflicted.  He will make sure PUCO staffers attend.

Janine


Scott,

Is there someone else in your group who can get Brent access to the Financial
Trading Agreement Database?
----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 07/21/2000 03:15 PM -----

	Michael Neves
	07/21/2000 03:01 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: I'm out of the office this week.

I will be out of the office from 07/17/2000 until 07/24/2000.

I will be checking email & voice mail regularly, but if you need to contact
me I can be reached by mobile phone at (281)-788-0243.  If it is an
emergency, please contact the Notes Development Group at 3-6929.


Thanks for the up-date. I think it is very good for Enron to be seen as a
leader in these dicussions. Particularly, I beleive that this process takes
much of the steam out of any attempt by the Bureau to portrait Enron as
someone who is not prepared to play within the rules. As well, Enron is
building credibility with the Regulators in Alberta which in my view may
serve us quite well down the road on Prject Stanley. I plan to keep Glenn
Leslie and Web MacDonald in the loop because I really think the two
processes are linked. Regards Dan.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Robert.Hemstock@enron.com>
To: <Rob.Milnthorp@enron.com>; <Derek.Davies@enron.com>;
<John.Zufferli@enron.com>; <Peter.Keohane@enron.com>; <Tim.Belden@enron.com>
Cc: <aleck.trawick@blakes.com>; <dpef@blakes.com>; <Aleck.Dadson@enron.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 11:53 PM
Subject: Update - Proposed Alberta Power Pool Rule Changes

> The attached memo provides an update on the status of the Power Pool's
> further consideration of the proposed rule changes.  In summary, it
appears
> the Pool will not proceed with the proposal to exclude import offers from
> setting pool price but will recommend a rule that reduces ability of
> suppliers to become price takers on volumes that were originally priced
too
> high to clear the merit order.  I will receive more specifics on the
> dispatch risk rule change on Monday.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> (See attached file: memoec~1.doc)


I have a lunch mtg at 11:30, but am otherwise OK that morning.


Gary/Michael

I am pleased to attach for your review the opinion of Linklaters you
requested addressing the question of whether EnronOnline's activities
constitute "arranging" under the FSA 1986.  Kindly acknowledge receipt.

I trust this meets your requirements and look forward to receiving your
confirmation of this at your earliest convenience.  Many thanks.

With best regards

Paul  (tel -  7783 6566)
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Simons/LON/ECT on 27/07/2000 09:54
---------------------------

London Fax System
27/07/2000 09:47
To: Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: New fax received (Likely sender: ).

You have received a new fax from

The image contains 4 page(s).


Notice No. 01-58
February 16, 2001

TO:
All NYMEX Members/Member Firms
All NYMEX Clearing Members
All NYMEX Floor Traders
All NYMEX Operations Managers

FROM:
George Henderson, Vice President

RE:
Options Expiration Operational Procedures for the Trading Floor and Clearing
Members
________________________________________________________________

The expiration date for the March 2001 options contract for Cinergy (NOH1),
Entergy (OTH1), Palo Verde (VOH1) and Cob (WOH1) is Thursday, February 22,
2001.

 GENERAL OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

All Clearing Members and Qualified Floor Traders that carried an options
position as of the close of business day prior to the expiration day, or
engaged in trading activity on Expiration Day in the expiring options
contract will be required to have a knowledgeable, duly authorized
representative present at their normal work station promptly at 5:30 p.m.
until released by the Exchange staff as specified below.  All adjustments
and/or corrections, must be accompanied by relevant supporting documentation
prior to being incorporated into expiration processing, in essence making the
expiration processing an extension of the afternoon trade resolution
procedures.  All input to the NYMEX Clearing Department will conclude no
later than 30 minutes after floor representatives are released.

Exchange Clearing (299-2110), Floor Trade Correction (299-2068 and 299-2169)
personnel, as well as a representative of the Floor Committee will be
available to assist with the processing of notices of Exercise and
Abandonment, position transfers, trade corrections and other questions or
problems you may have.

CLEARING DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

The Option Expiration process is a screen based process for which all
information is provided on the screens on C21 terminals. No Option Expiration
Reports will be provided. The following screens will assist you through the
Option Expiration process:

MEMBER TRADE INQUIRY
Contains real-time top day trade information, trade information for the
previous 4 business days and trade=s adjusted for the previous 4 business
days by adjustment date.

SINGLE POSITION MAINTENANCE
Contains a real-time snapshot for each option series from the start of day
position to the projected end of day position.

REVIEW ACCEPT REJECT TRANSFERS
Contains all trade and position transfers ATO@ your firm and the status of
each transfer.

REVIEW SUBMITTED TRANSFERS
Contains all trade and position transfer AFROM@ your firm and the status of
each transfer.

EXERCISE NOTICE SUBMISSION
Contains your available long position and an input field to enter the number
of long positions you wish to exercise.

DO NOT EXERCISE SUBMISSION
Contains your available long position and an input field to enter the number
of long positions you wish to abandon.

POSITION CHANGE SUBMISSION
PCS may be submitted either by manual input or by electronic transmission.
Any PCS input on a Clearing 21 terminal will be the input processed by the
system.  This input may be made at any time prior to 6:45 p.m.  Any PCS input
via transmission for that contract series will be disregarded.

ALL POSITIONS ARE DEEMED FINAL
Upon completion of all PCS input, all positions will be deemed final.

EXERCISE/ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION
Will be available to you on the Single Position Maintenance window by
contract series or the Assignment List window which contains all your
Assignments on one window. You will be notified of its availability by C21
E-Mail and by Fast Facts. This should occur within 1 hour of the last PCS
input.

All Clearing Members are required to have an authorized representative(s) at
their C21 workstations in preparation for any communication during the
expiration process.

FAST FACTS
Clearing Members should call the Fast Facts information service 301-4871,
access code 700 for event messages advising Members of the event status.

E-MAIL
Clearing Members should read their C21 E-Mail messages immediately to be
aware of event status.

The standard event Fast Facts and/or E-Mail messages and the sequence in
which they will be announced are:

STANDARD EVENT   APPROXIMATE TIME USUAL         FAST FACTS(F)
MESSAGES   OF MESSAGE  EVENT TIME E-MAIL    (E)
           AVAILABILITY    BOTH      (B)

Announce Out-of-the        5:45PM   5:45PM  F
Money Exercise and In-the-Money
Do Not Exercise Submissions

Announce Final Input to C21   6:30PM   6:45PM  E
Cutoff Time

All positions are deemed final          7:30PM   6:45PM  F

Announce Exercise/Assignment   8:25PM   8:30PM  B
Information Available on the Single
Position Maintenance Windows

All Report Distribution is  11:00PM  11:00PM  F
completed

The times appearing in the Usual Event Time column are based on normal
operational conditions and could vary.

NYMEX EXPIRATION DAY PROCESSING OVERVIEW OF MEMBER REQUIREMENTS

Time: 5:30 PM
Activity: Exercise Notice Submission
Event: Input to C21 Cutoff Time
Reference Number: 1

Time: 5:30 PM
Activity: Do Not Exercise Submission
Event: Input to C21 Cutoff Time
Reference Number: 2

Time: 5:45 PM
Activity: Announce Out-of-the-Money Exercise and In-the-Money Do Not Exercise
Submissions
Event: Fast Facts Notice
Reference Number: 3

Time: 6:30 PM
Activity: Announce Final Input to C21 Cutoff Time
Event: C21 E-mail
Reference Number: 4

Time: 6:45 PM
Activity: Final Input to C21 Cutoff Time
Reference Number: 5

Time: 7:30 PM
Activity: All Positions are Deemed Final
Event: Fast Facts Notice
Reference Number: 6

Time: 8:25 PM
Activity: Announce Exercise/Assignment Information Available on the Single
Position Maintenance Windows
Event: Fast Facts Notice and C21 E-mail
Reference Number: 7

If you have any questions concerning these procedures, please contact Charles
V. Bebel at 299-2130, Angel Rivera at 299-2150 or Anthony Di Benedetto at
299-2152 prior to the expiration date.

__________________________________________________
Please click on the link below to indicate you have received this
email.

"http://208.206.41.61/email/email_log.cfm?useremail=tana.jones@enron.com&refdo
c=(01-58)"

Note: If you click on the above line and nothing happens, please copy
the text between the quotes, open your internet browser,
paste it into the web site address and press Return.


[IMAGE]
www.rlcnet.org
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????! ??????????????????????????????????????????????? CONTACT: Matt
Well
Wednesday, October 25,
2000??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????&n! bsp;??????????????????????????????????????????????? PHONE:
202-547-1700
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????&nbsp!
;?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????? PAGER: 888-781-2151
RLC Increases New Jersey TV Ad Buy
As Franks-Corzine Race Tightens
Budget-Busting, Anti-Taxpayer Corzine Issues
Beginning To Impact Senate Race

?Washington, DC -- The Republican Leadership Council (RLC) announced that it
will increase its existing New Jersey TV ad buy by an additional $250,000,
beginning immediately, and will step up efforts to point out the fiscal
profligacy associated with Democrat Jon Corzine's economic platform.

?"We're clearly making headway in our effort to educate New Jersey taxpayers
about the real cost of Corzine's ideas for big government, and we're going to
turn up the volume of our TV buy in New Jersey," said Mark Miller, Executive
Director of the RLC.? "The bottom line is that Jon Corzine's irresponsible
'free lunch' big spending schemes will ruin our economic prosperity, and send
the nation back into deficit spending."

?The RLC ad, which will be extended in both the Philadelphia and New York
markets, charges that Corzine's spending programs would cost the average
taxpayer $5,000 per year, and quotes a newspaper editorial saying that,
"Corzine's... schemes would come at a tremendous cost to taxpayers."

?Meanwhile, a new Quinnipiac College survey of 909 likely New Jersey voters
released today shows GOP candidate Bob Franks within five points, 46%-41%,
even after being outspent by Corzine by record margins.

?Miller noted that the new survey shows Corzine with an unimpressive 30% -
26% Favorable/ Unfavorable rating overall, and evenly split among
independents at 26%.

?"Because Corzine's message is based almost entirely on giving away taxpayers
dollars for government program after government program, taxpayers are
looking more skeptically at his proposals," said Miller.? "New Jersey
taxpayers don't believe Corzine should spend their money as recklessly as he
spends his own money."

# # #
To subscribe or unsubscribe send your name and e-mail address to
info@rlcnet.org or visit www.rlcnet.org.


I forgot to send this one on...SRS
---------------------- Forwarded by Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron on 11/13/2000
05:11 PM ---------------------------

Sharon Lay <sharon.lay@travelpark.com> on 11/10/2000 11:01:07 AM
To: "'sherri.sera@enron.com'" <sherri.sera@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: FW: FW: ELECTION NEWS

Sherri, there is a polo party tonight at Solero if you are available!
> ----------
> From:  Yortex@aol.com[SMTP:Yortex@aol.com]
> Sent:  Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:13 PM
> To:  abi@mail.cybermesa.com; lizard_ar@yahoo.com; Sharon@travelpark.com;
> m.shute@eudoramail.com; BourneB@umsystem.edu
> Subject:  Re: FW: ELECTION NEWS
>
>  <<truman2002.ppt>>
> I'll send it again here -- just a Missouri political joke...  I'll resend
> it
> to a few of you in case you had trouble opening it...
>

 - truman2002.ppt


Hey guys,

I've updated the transmission rates table for May - here is the location:

M:\Electric\East Volume Mgmt\Transmission\Transmission Rates

If there is a better spot for this to make it more accessible just let me
know and I can put a copy of it whereever.

Couple of other trends I've noticed that hopefully can be corrected...

First Energy transmission is now and has been for a while under the
counterparty American Transmission Systems, Inc. (ATSI)
Duke transmission should be under the Duke counterparty Duke Electric
Transmission (DUKEELETRA)
Georgia's ancillary service charges have changed although their website has
not be updated - price changed from $2.57 to $2.49

Please pass this along to the rest of the group, if any of you have any
questions or suggestions - don't hesitate to call.

Thanks,
Michael

AOL IM - mejake007
steno - 635
x35098


Mark,

Per our conversations, as the e-mail below indicates, there is a big demand
for a company that can help start-ups identify visionairy customers.

> The Ten Dangers of Early Market Selling
> 1. Ignoring the key goals of Early Market sales
> 2. Not understanding the psychographics you are dealing with
> 3. Employing ineffective qualification (i.e., segmentation) criteria
> 4. Asking the wrong people in your organization to find and close the
> first few deals
> 5. Not knowing where to find likely visionary buyers
> 6. Failing to align with the visionary's goals and requirements
> 7. Mistaking "pragmatists in drag" for visionaries
> 8. Not charging for custom R&D and/or implementation services
> 9. Structuring each deal as a product sale rather than a "whole project"
> 10. Failing to see when/how to cross the chasm (and avoid the plunge!)
>
> 1. Back to Basics: Surviving the Ten Traps of Early Market Selling (Part
> I)
> In December's edition of Under the Buzz (vol.1, no.8: "LifeCycle-based
> Enterprise Sales: The Key to Crossing the Chasm"), I made brief references
> to sales strategies for the Early Market, while focusing attention on
> strategies for crossing the Chasm. Executives and VCs among our readers
> responded that the topic of enterprise sales was indeed timely, and many
> welcomed the guidance offered. In parallel, at the Net Market Makers
> Ground Zero 4 conference panel I hosted in early December, enterprise
> sales was a key concern on the minds of panelists and audience members
> alike. Even though some product categories appear to have passed beyond
> the stage of gestation that the early market represents, many categories
> appear still to be experiencing early adoption: in fact, while many B2B
> companies - especially erstwhile net marketplaces - re-purpose their
> businesses (see section 3 of this edition), new categories of offerings
> continue to emerge, including e-finance services, supply chain
> visibility/execution, and collaborative commerce solutions (section 4 of
> this issue). And, even companies in categories that may be starting to
> move across the chasm still need to tackle the "big, hairy audacious
> projects" of their visionary customers more effectively.
> Early Market Adoption Dynamics and Ten Key Traps to Avoid
> It is frequently stated that, in order to establish the value proposition
> of a new technology, the early market phase requires a simple strategy:
> "just go get a customer". Reinforcing this approach, our firm emphasizes
> that the core market development strategy at this point is indeed
> "deal-driven". So, what's the problem? If you have a sufficiently
> attractive - and discontinuous - innovation to bring to the table, surely
> it is indeed a question of "just" going out and closing a deal with a
> willing customer. Well, not so fast. In my own personal experience running
> software companies, I experienced significant difficulties to make this
> strategy work, and in my consulting practice I see companies flounder
> every day in early market customer engagement. Hence, success in the Early
> Market is far from being a trivial feat. Therefore, I want to examine in
> some detail the principal traps and how companies can avoid them. At least
> ten potentially critical dangers lie in wait for unsuspecting companies,
> the first five of which I shall address here:
> 1. Ignoring the key goals of Early Market sales: Companies tend to act as
> if this is a time to sell to as many customers as possible, in order to
> build a reference list that will impress later adopters. Unfortunately, by
> treating all comers as "early adopters", they often end up with the worst
> possible compromise: they get involved in extended sales cycles with
> mainly hesitant customers who end up requesting custom enhancements in
> return for small "pilot" contracts that take ages to close. In those cases
> where companies do attract a bona-fide visionary customer, they are often
> unsure how to manage the opportunity. Thus, they jump through technical
> hoops to satisfy the customer's aggressive requirements, but fail to get
> compensated for the value they deliver. Assuming for a moment that your
> company does have a valid Early Market proposition - i.e., a discontinuous
> innovation that promises to enable business in a significantly new way -
> then the main objectives are to prove (a) that the new category is indeed
> a hot one, and (b) that you are a player with leadership potential. The
> best way of achieving these goals is to find a few big company-making
> deals with visible customers who are willing to take a risk on your
> technology because they believe it can garner for them a real and dramatic
> competitive advantage. Commerce One's deal with General Motors in late
> 1999 to build an online e-procurement marketplace was a good example of
> how to do this. On the day the deal was announced, the company's stock
> price registered a significant uptick and it emerged as a leading players
> in e-procurement alongside Ariba.
> 2. Not understanding the psychographics you are dealing with: The early
> market has two distinct constituencies, each of which is quite different
> in turn from the other three (pragmatists, conservatives, and skeptics).
> While technology enthusiasts are technology-focused, visionaries are
> business-focused. More important, they are critical partners in the early
> market "buyer alliance" required to make anything of significance happen:
> techies need the funding provided by empowered visionaries to implement
> the new technologies in a true, industry-shaping project, while
> visionaries rely on techies to tell them whether or not the new technology
> has a chance of actually working in a live setting. Thus, while
> visionaries may not actually care two hoots about technology per se, or
> they may not really understand its intrinsic characteristics, they do have
> a keen awareness of its relevance to their business objectives.
> Unfortunately, in their anxiety to find acceptance for their "new new
> thing", companies confuse pragmatists with these two groups, resulting in
> missed opportunities - perhaps the worst of which is the sin of giving too
> much away for free, because visionaries are results-sensitive, but not
> price-sensitive.
> 3. Employing ineffective qualification (i.e., segmentation) criteria: Many
> companies fail to recognize that Early Market selling, in common with
> later stages in the Life Cycle, does require a segmentation strategy -
> though quite a counter-intuitive one. As a result, they spend precious
> energy selling to the wrong target customers. For example, in the Bowling
> Alley you segment for pragmatist managers in self-referencing groups (such
> as micro-niches of vertical markets), whereas in the tornado you segment
> for anyone ready to make a quick purchase decision for maximum volume, and
> on Main Street you segment for end users in selected niche markets whose
> needs and preferences you can serve effectively. In contrast, during the
> Early Market stage, when all constituencies except for the small number of
> techies and visionary executives automatically disqualify themselves from
> buying the new new thing, vendors must segment ruthlessly for visionary
> executives in visible organizations.
> 4. Asking the wrong people in your organization to find and close the
> first few deals: In most cases, assigning your entire sales force, large
> or small, to the task of finding and closing big deals with visionaries is
> asking for trouble. In order to engage with executives in such
> organizations, your best resources must be actively engaged. After all,
> these are the defining projects that will establish your company in the
> new category, so they are core for the company. The basic model for this
> in a young B2B company is an evangelistic "sales team" led by the CEO and
> CTO, supported wherever possible by a cadre of evangelist sales,
> technology and domain professionals. Though not entirely unlike the SWAT
> group which is appropriate for the Bowling Alley, this teaming model tends
> to be more of a virtual team, consisting of the key partners in the
> project: (i) the visionary customer, (ii) the technology company, and
> (iii) the senior service firm.
> 5. Not knowing where to find likely visionary buyers: One of the main
> problems associated with selling to techies and visionaries is that
> there's no way of telling from their business card or job title what their
> IT adoption behavior is. Worse still they tend not to congregate in herds,
> so it's difficult to find groups of them. Fortunately, however,
> visionaries tend to leave a trail - there aren't many of them and they
> usually have a track record (of sorts). While visionary individuals
> quickly make a name for themselves and (unlike company owners such as
> Michael Dell) often move from one company to another, companies stay in
> one place and, in general, they fall into one of two categories: large
> Global 2000 organizations, or fast-growing companies, often in new-ish
> industries (e.g., wireless telecommunications). One of the best ways of
> identifying them is the combined personal networks of any management team,
> as well as in publications that detail their successful and unsuccessful
> projects. After a short brainstorm session, you can usually draw up a list
> of twenty or more "suspects", and this is as good a place as any to start.
>
> The five points above deal mainly with understanding what the early market
> stage is really about, and how to identify and connect with visionary
> buyers. The last five dangers relate to how to successfully engage with
> bona-fide visionaries, and determine when to move to the next stage in the
> Life Cycle. Here is the complete list of ten traps, the last five (in
> bold) to be addressed later:
>
> For readers whose business is currently in the early market stage, I
> encourage you to measure your progress in avoiding the traps we have
> described here, by analyzing each significant sale closed to date, as well
> as those currently in the pipeline. If you have fallen into one of these
> traps, I strongly recommend that you debate this issue with your
> colleagues, because every mistake made here can cost you dearly. For
> readers whose business is not currently in this adoption stage, consider
> the contrast between the dynamics of the early market and the stage you
> believe your business is in. This will help you to distinguish between the
> appropriate strategies for each stage.
>
> 6. Failing to align with the visionary's goals and requirements: From the
> time you first hit it off with a true visionary buyer, you must do
> everything possible to fit in with their vision - because they always have
> a project in mind before you came along - whether it be a plan to change
> the ground-rules in their industry, gain a defensible leap in market
> share, or revolutionize some business process. Strangely enough, the worst
> possible mistake is to act like a typical product vendor, because the one
> thing that will scare them off is a vendor eager to do a deal at all
> costs. For example, agreeing to do complex custom product enhancements at
> the drop of a hat smack of desperation, and tends to make them feel that
> you may not be able to deliver what they need in the timeframe they need
> it. Remember, far from being price-sensitive, visionaries are extremely
> results-sensitive. This is because, if you think about it, their
> willingness to go where no man hath gone before makes them vulnerable if
> it should fail. Thus, visionaries need their chosen technology provider to
> do whatever it takes to make them successful. In light of this, you can
> and should count on them to be a true partner in the "whole project",
> along with the senior service partner who may already be a valued
> counselor to them.
> 7. Mistaking pragmatists "in drag" for visionaries: Pragmatists, just like
> conservatives, and even skeptics, read the same books on core competencies
> and competitive advantage as do visionaries, and they can be equally
> proficient in the lingo of strategy. Apart from any other consideration,
> talking big sounds much better than to admit right off the bat that the
> real reason they came to your seminar is, well, fear that they may be
> missing out on something important. Not -- as Seinfeld might say -- that
> there's anything wrong with being a pragmatist. It's just that, if we
> don't listen carefully, we can waste fatal amounts of time and money
> courting them, only to have a big deal forecast to close within three
> months turn into a small pilot that doesn't close for a year (or ever),
> with very little resource commitment by the customer. So, how can you tell
> immediately that you are dealing with a pragmatist rather than a
> visionary? Well, there are two guaranteed signs to probe for: (1) the
> visionary always has a project in mind that they are dying to tell you
> about, whereas the pragmatist or conservative is only there to keep tabs
> on the new stuff and make sure they don't need to do anything about it for
> the time being; (2) when your prospective customer asks "so, who else is
> doing this?" if they are a visionary, their expression is one of
> anticipation that they might be the first in their industry to invest in
> this new stuff, whereas pragmatists will always betray their true colors
> by the concerned look on their faces at this point. Having spotted a
> pragmatist, the best way to deal with them is to let them know that you
> understand their lack of readiness to buy at this time, and will keep them
> informed about your progress. This "reverse psychology" provides them with
> valuable assurance, and may even intrigue them enough to result in a pilot
> purchase- that you will not treat as a big deal warranting "whatever it
> takes" support.
> 8. Not charging for custom R&D or implementation services: Due to the
> plain anxiety to gain acceptance for the new innovation, companies have a
> strong tendency to want to give everything away in order to please their
> customer and thus get the contract signed quickly. Since we have said that
> visionary buyers are results-sensitive rather than price-sensitive, this
> approach can only delay the deal -- and, worse still, actually diminish
> the size of the initial commitment. In fact, the one thing that worries
> them about a vendor's eager-to-please approach in an early-market project
> negotiation is when we agree to do everything for free -- and by next
> week, into the bargain. Why would this worry them, if they stand to
> receive extra value for free? Well, put yourself in their place: if you
> have just knowingly asked your chosen vendor to develop one or two
> additional features in an still untested technology, wouldn't you worry
> just a little whether or not they can deliver something working in such a
> short time? In pure financial terms, this foolhardy attitude reduces
> dramatically the revenue received from the hard work of providing the
> requisite technology and services (usually at the cost of other key
> commitments).
> 9. Structuring each deal as a product sales rather than a "whole project":
> Most software companies are designed from the start to be product
> businesses, even if they know they will have to provide for plenty of
> customization to their products by engineering and/or professional
> services. Furthermore, the business model is set as a license-fee
> business, with service fees tacked on as a secondary, tactical sideline.
> This generally makes it difficult to identify and close true early-market
> opportunities effectively and profitably. The reason is that this model
> causes the vendor to focus on selling a product license, which flies
> directly in the face of the customer's goals. The clearest sign that
> vendors are approaching the early market sales opportunities incorrectly
> is that the product becomes their key point of reference; for every
> question asked by the customer, they point to benefits the product
> provides, to show how the product can solve the customer's problem --
> whatever it may be. Unfortunately for product vendors, visionary customers
> see new technologies as concepts in search of proof, rather than as
> finished products. Furthermore, they recognize that they are the only
> customers willing to commit time, resources, and money to incorporating
> the new technology into their project - assuming it is a key catalyst to
> make the project viable. However, the more the vendor sets out to prove
> that the product does everything the customer needs, the more they get
> into hot water, via repeated demos; the customer sends different teams to
> see the latest custom demo that doesn't quite do everything the customer
> dreams of, the company then has to do unnatural acts by the following week
> in order to recover the lost ground with a demo that actually works, by
> which time the customer has become concerned that the vendor is not really
> listening to their requests, but just trying to sell them something.
> The only solution to this problem during this stage is for the vendor to
> think like a service company, evaluating every valid opportunity as a
> project, rather than a product sale. Engineering and implementation
> resources should be allocated a priori to these projects, the best and
> most senior talent needs to be allocated to co-managing the project and
> ensuring follow-through, contracts should be structured on a risk-reward
> basis, and every piece of value-adding work should be charged for (large
> companies understand that you are not a registered charity). By and large,
> deal structure should emulate the structure of large technology
> integration projects: the customer should commit to (a) a significant cash
> payment up-front to fund start-up resources, then (b) milestone payments
> for each key project phase, and (c) a final payment for project completion
> and full rollout. Customers need to know that the vendor is committed to
> their success, so pricing and fees must reflect this emphasis. Remember,
> they are results-sensitive, so that whenever they are not charged for work
> that they consider critical, they will become concerned about on-time
> delivery of a working solution. There is only one exception to this
> pricing guideline: work performed to make good on basic, existing
> functionality should be funded by technology vendor, as a basic part of
> their contractual obligation.
> 10. Failing to see know when/how to move to the next stage: Unfortunately,
> a year or two into the Early Market stage, there is no Gartner Group or
> Forrester report to let you know for sure that it's time to change
> strategies and negotiate the delicate but vital leap across the Chasm. In
> fact, the only reliable indications that you have reached the end of this
> big-project stage are two-fold: (1) no new visionaries -- all of the
> visionaries that could have been attracted to your technology have already
> made their commitments (and these customers are now anxiously waiting to
> for their project to be completed), and (2) pragmatists are still wary of
> making any more than a token toe-in-the-water commitment to a pilot
> project. Now, if you've been reasonably successful during this stage, you
> probably have between three and seven live projects at various stages of
> completion, and a number of pilots in place with the pragmatists you
> managed to eke out a deal with. But, still, it's not easy to know that
> it's time to cross the chasm. What's left to do is review each significant
> project in detail, to see what competitive advantage benefits your
> visionary customers have realized. Selling to pragmatist department
> managers in the bowling alley requires that you translate this discourse
> about "pursuing competitive advantage" to "eliminating severe competitive
> disadvantage". No matter how clearly your first pragmatist customers
> intellectualize the positive benefits of the technology, remember that
> they are not sufficiently motivated to emotionally to take the plunge,
> unless they truly believe that they are suffering a "severed jugular" type
> of emergency. This allows you to start plotting a target beachhead
> strategy. If herd behavior starts to occur in the same market segment,
> this is an indication that it is safe to proceed.
> Deciding when enough is enough in the Early Market is about determining
> when you have too many one-off projects to deal with, and don't see new
> visionaries calling to discuss new ones. This is the most reliable way of
> knowing that it is time to start the delicate transition toward the
> Bowling Alley -- without, hopefully, crashing down into the Chasm. In a
> forthcoming issue, we shall discuss the "how" of this challenge -- how to
> negotiate the delicate and crucial task of crossing the awesome and
> dangerous chasm.
>
>
> ================================
> Giri Iyer
> Corporate Evangelist
> iVita Corp.
> 13111, Northwest Freeway, Suite 400
> Houston, TX 77040
> (P) 832-590-7404
> (M)281-435-2406
> (F) 713-895-7461
> Giri.Iyer@iVita.com
> www.iVita.com
> ================================
>


Please note my change in e-mail address.  I would advise that you use

gackerman@wptf.org

for all correspondence.  That address points to the new mindspring
address.

gba

 - 11.pdf


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Whitt, Mark
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:26 PM
To:	'mawhitt@aol.com'; Bump, Dan J.; Harrison, Tyrell; Lucci, Paul T.
Subject:	FW: Things you'll never hear women say.

This is an old one but still good.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Appling, Mike  [mailto:mappling@chematch.com]
Sent:	Friday, August 17, 2001 2:45 PM
To:	Brett Treadwell (E-mail) ; David Elias (E-mail) ; David Zaozirny (E-mail) ; Dwayne Hyzak (E-mail) ; George Appling (E-mail) ; Jeff Thomas (E-mail) ; Jerry Jernigan (E-mail) ; Jes Morris (E-mail) ; John Carr (E-mail) ; Kelly Boston (E-mail) ; Kevin Baros (E-mail) ; Kregg Lunsford (E-mail) ; Mark Whitt (E-mail) ; Steven Jernigan (E-mail) ; Steven Wolf (E-mail) ; Wade Pursell (E-mail) ; Wade Sanders (E-mail) ; William evans (E-mail)
Subject:	FW: Things you'll never hear women say.

-----Original Message-----
From: Boase, Allan
Sent:  Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:54 AM
To: Appling, Mike; Brown, Nancy;  Exley, Melisa; Giraldo, Melissa; Josephs, Bob; Leahy, Steve; McAfee, Larry;  Medeles, Ismael; Orjuela, Natalie; Peyton, Mickie; Snear, Clay; Venezia,  Charles
Subject: FW: Things you'll never hear women  say.

Things you'll never hear women say.
>  > >
> > > 1. You know, I've been complaining a lot lately. I  don't
> > > blame you for ignoring me.
> > >
>  > > 2. The new woman in my office is a real beauty, and a
> >  > stripper too. I invited her over for dinner on Friday.
> > >
> > > 3. While you were in the bathroom, they went for it on
> > > fourth down and missed. If they can hold them to a field goal
> > > they'll still cover.
> > >
> > > 4.  Bar food again!? Great!
> > >
> > > 5. I liked that  wedding even more than ours. You know,
> > > your ex-girlfriend has  class.
> > >
> > > 6. That woman is wearing the same  outfit as I am. Cool,
> > > I'm gonna go talk to her.
> >  >
> > > 7. Let's just leave the toilet seat "up" at all times,
> > > then you don't have to mess with it anymore.
> >  >
> > > 8. Honey, isn't tonight your night out with the boys?
> > > You need your time with them.
> > >
>  > > 9. It's only the third quarter,   we should order a
> >  > couple more pitchers.
> > >
> > > 10. My mother  is going to take care of the tab, so order
> > > another round for  you and your friends.
> > >
> > > 11. I'm so happy  with my new hairstyle, I don't think
> > > I'll ever change it  again.
> > >
> > > 12. Damn! I love when my pillow  smells like your cigars and
> > > beer.   You passed out  before brushing your teeth again, ya' big silly!
> > >
>  > > 13. You are so much smarter than my father.
> > >
> > > 14. Are you sure you've had enough to drink?
> >  >
> > > 15. I've decided to stop wearing clothes around the
> > > house.
> > >
> > > 16. You're so  sexy when you're hung over.
> > >
> > > 17. I love it  when you change channels all the time. It
> > > really helps me  find out what else is on!
> > >
> > > 18. Let's  subscribe to Hustler.
> > >
> > > 19. If you need me,  I'll be out painting the house.
> > >
> > > 20. I love  it when you ride your Harley, I just wish you had
> > > more time  to ride.
> > >
> > > 21. Honey, our new neighbor's  daughter is sunbathing
> > > again, come see!
> > >
> > > 22. No, no, I'll take both of our cars to have the oil  changed.
> > >
> > > 23. Your mother is way better  than mine.


I forgot to mention something yesterday.  3 (g) states that within 10 days of
closing we will provide Coral with the documents on Exhibit T.  I personally
do not know if we have all the documents listed. We need to either verify
that we have these documents, or add some language about providing the ones
in our possession.

Thanks,

Kay


Lisa and Richard,

I wanted to give you both a heads up on the two latest bankruptcies:  Arcadia
Energy Corp and Armstrong World Industries.  EES is the only Enron entity
with exposure to Arcadia (approx $4MM); ECC and EES have limited exposure
(<100K) to Armstrong and its Canadian subsidiary.  If you have any questions,
please give Tanya, Bill, or myself a call.

Thanks,
Veronica


Hey Kevin,
Heres the "Big Spreadsheet" for Sithe.


The projects in the lastest copy of the evaluation model are outlined in the attached file.


not me.  i wont get a vette unless i am 50, single & have a mustache.  if i
need to pick up the young cheesey babes when i am old i will get one.  i
never heard of that movie.


Thanks John for the comments.  That leaves it up to legal to answer Susan's
question.  Carol, any thoughts?

Jane McBride
Senior Legal Counsel
Enron Japan Corp.

Tel.:       81-3-5219-4500 (Main)
            81-3-5219-4553 (Direct)
Fax:        81-3-5219-4510

Assistant (Maggy Yamanishi)
Tel.:       81-3-5219-4554
Email:      Yo.Yamanishi@enron.com

	John Suttle@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	Sent by: John Suttle@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	2001/02/26 09:16

		 To: Jane McBride/AP/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Susan Musch/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Alan
Aronowitz@ECT, Carol St Clair@ENRON, Mark Taylor@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Enron: ISDA Schedules

Jane -

Not to back-pass the issue, I think this is generally a Legal question.  From
the Credit perspective, our concern is Enron's ability to:
- Call for collateral
- Receive it and hold it
- Have title to it/perfect it in case of default
- Retain it in the case of bankruptcy to offset exposures

If we agree to accept it in yen or dollars, in Japan or the U.S., from my
perspective, it is important that we simply identify the necessary legal, tax
and operational procedures, then implement the processes that allow Enron to
accomplish the above criteria.

If I need to address these issues in greater detail, or if you need anything
further, please let me know.

John Suttle

Jane McBride@ENRON
02/26/2001 10:36 AM
To: Susan Musch/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, John  Suttle, Carol St Clair, Mark
Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Enron: ISDA Schedules

Dear Susan,

I am not really sure what the answer is to your question and I am not really
sure whether these decisions are ultimately made by legal or credit although
I suspect the latter.

John or Carol, do you have any thoughts?

Jane McBride
Senior Legal Counsel
Enron Japan Corp.

Tel.:       81-3-5219-4500 (Main)
            81-3-5219-4553 (Direct)
Fax:        81-3-5219-4510

Assistant (Maggy Yamanishi)
Tel.:       81-3-5219-4554
Email:      Yo.Yamanishi@enron.com

	Susan Musch@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	2001/02/24 07:21

		 To: Jane.McBride@enron.com
		 cc: Edwin.T.Whatley@BAKERNET.com, Paul.TYO.Davis@BakerNet.com,
Yukinori.Watanabe@BAKERNET.com, Jeremy.Pitts@BAKERNET.com, Jeff
Blumenthal/Enron@EnronXGate
		 Subject: Re: Enron: ISDA Schedules

Jane,

I am guessing that in practice, Enron Japan would not accept the tender for
collateral in the US for transactions it enters into in Japan.  However,
would you please confirm this?

Best regards,
Susan

Edwin.T.Whatley@BAKERNET.com on 02/23/2001 03:13:15 AM
To: smusch@enron.com, Jane.McBride@enron.com
cc: Paul.TYO.Davis@BakerNet.com, Yukinori.Watanabe@BAKERNET.com,
Jeremy.Pitts@BAKERNET.com

Subject: Enron:  ISDA Schedules

Dear Susan and Jane:

Please see attached, best regards, Ed

Edwin.T.Whatley@bakernet.com
Phone: 81-3-3796-5857 Fax:81-3-3479-4224
Registered in Japan as an Attorney at Foreign Law;  Jurisdiction of  Primary
Qualification--California; Designated Law--Washington, D.C. and All U.S.
States
Except Louisiana
This is an e-mail from Baker & McKenzie - Tokyo Aoyama Law Office (Qualified
Joint Enterprise Offices).  The contents of this e-mail may be privileged and
confidential and are intended only for the use of the addressee.  No one else
may copy, forward, disclose or use all or any of it in any form.  If you are
not
an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and
delete
this e-mail from your system. Thank you.

 - Enron-sm10.doc
Message-ID: <OFCF340DD0.8125722C-ON862569F9.008254E8@enron.com>
From: Susan.Musch@enron.com
To: Edwin.T.Whatley@bakernet.com
Cc: Paul.Davis@bakernet.com, Jeff.Blumenthal@enron.com,
Jane.McBride@enron.com
Subject: ISDA Schedules
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:43:34 +0800
Return-Receipt-To: Susan.Musch@enron.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C09D78.DAD2FA70"

Ed,

I am attaching the memo that you wrote last May on the Japanese tax
consequences of financially settled derivative transactions and physically
settled transactions.  I have also attached copies of current ISDA and
Credit Support Annex ("CSA") Schedules.  I need you to review the ISDA and
CSA Schedules and revisit and comment on your attached advice as necessary.

Also, I need you to give more specific advice with respect to collateral.
We generally take and give as collateral either cash or letters of credit.
We should assume that cash may be pledged in Dollars or Yen and that it may
be held in the US or Japan.

As always, I appreciate your help with this matter.  Would you please let
me know if you can provide comments by your close of business on Thursday?

Best regards,
Susan

(See attached file: ISDA Schedule - Japan.doc)(See attached file: CSA -
Japan.doc)

---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Musch/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
02/20/2001 05:54 PM ---------------------------

Edwin.T.Whatley@BAKERNET.com on 05/11/2000 04:38:03 AM

To:   smusch@enron.com
cc:   Paul.TYO.Davis@BakerNet.com, Yukinori.Watanabe@BAKERNET.com,
      Jeremy.Pitts@BAKERNET.com, Shimon.Takagi@BAKERNET.com,
      Kohji.Mori@BAKERNET.com, Shinichi.Kobayashi@BAKERNET.com

Subject:  Enron Online

Dear Susan:

Please see attached.  Best regards, Ed

Edwin.T.Whatley@bakernet.com
Phone: 81-3-3796-5857 Fax:81-3-3479-4224
Registered in Japan as an Attorney at Foreign Law;  Jurisdiction of
Primary
Qualification--California; Designated Law--Washington, D.C. and All U.S.
States
Except Louisiana
This is an e-mail from Baker & McKenzie - Tokyo Aoyama Law Office
(Qualified
Joint Enterprise Offices).  The contents of this e-mail may be privileged
and
confidential and are intended only for the use of the addressee.  No one
else
may copy, forward, disclose or use all or any of it in any form.  If you
are not
an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and
delete
this e-mail from your system. Thank you.

(See attached file: Enron-sm09a.doc)

 - ISDA Schedule - Japan.doc
 - CSA - Japan.doc
 - Enron-sm09a.doc


Richard --

Just spoke with Sheila Tweed.  She said the company filled the slot for
which we presented George Bernhardt and suggested I contact you about
the company's attorney needs.

We have an attorney who did a clerkship at Marathon Oil (Houston) while
a University of Connecticut law student.  Since graduating in '94, he
has gained legal experience solely in Moscow doing energy work while at
international firms (including the London-based Denton Hall firm).  He
has a project finance background which made me think of your team at
Enron.

Are these credentials which interest you and the company?  Please give
me a ring or drop a line letting me know when you get a moment.  I
appreciate.

Best regards,

Gm.
--
Gregory C. MacCrone
Attorney Recruiter

Staffing Solutions, LLC/K-Counsel
610 SW Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, OR  97205-3406
T:  503-295-9948/800-834-9762
F:  503-297-9977
E:  k-counsel@staffingsolutionsllc.com


you (and Matt) going to dallas this week?