FEATURES: INFORMATION SERVICES
Physical benchmarksin an on-line world Startup on-line commodity exchanges seem not to realize that there are several good reasons why benchmarks derived from volumetric indices may not work--and may not be useful--for physical products, such as oil and petrochemicals. But there are other routes to price discovery
By Neil Fleming

Apr. 1, 2001
Global Energy Business
Page 37
Copyright 2001 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Somewhere near 500 Internet-based exchanges for energy, oil, petrochemicals, and hydrocarbon shipping have been launched worldwide over the past two years. But most have since folded or been acquired. It's interesting to note that virtually all of those exchanges--both the survivors and the deceased--have two things in common. -- They were created from scratch by entrepreneurs from the technology world, or from the industries their exchanges are (or were) intended to serve. -- The businessmen and women behind them have followed the same train of thought in concluding that on-line trading was a business they could succeed at.

This train of thought can be broken down into four parts.

Premise 1: On-line trading is ``more efficient'' and will save its participants money.

Premise 2: I can capture some of those savings as site revenue.

Premise 3: My site will be the best site out there, so everyone will use it.

Premise 4: With all this liquidity, I can construct benchmarks. My benchmarks will be unimpeachably scientific and replace the existing, unscientific benchmarks currently used by the industry. As a result, I will make even more money, because I will become an information provider.

This article will examine those premises and the limits of their inherent logic, with a view to showing why very few--if any--of the 500 launched exchanges will survive. In particular, it will show why the logic of Premise 4 is not valid for markets in physical commodities, such as oil and petrochemicals.

Premise 1: On-line trading is more efficient

Few would question that, in theory, electronic trading has the potential to make liquid markets much more efficient. The history of EnronOnline, probably the most successful electronic energy trading system in the world today, supports that view. According to Enron, EnronOnline has succeeded in raising the number of transactions completed by each of its market makers from an average 672 in 1999 to 3,084 last year, while lowering the marginal cost per transaction by 75% over the two-year period.

However, the markets that EnronOnline predominantly serves are two of the most liquid and homogeneous in the energy business: natural gas and electricity. Moreover, the exchange has achieved its efficiency gains using a model very different from any deployed by--or available to--most on-line exchanges. Essentially, Enron has used on-line trading to extend and complement its existing, off-line trading business. Enron's focus remains the transaction, rather than the transaction system.

By contrast, the majority of transaction platforms for physical commodities are interlopers. Their operators assume that commodities traders are willing to depersonalize their business by having their complex transactions executed not by humans, but by an electronic system that can do deals faster and more anonymously, and--at least in theory--with more players.

This assumption is a risky one, largely because it is based on a buyer's perception of how marketplaces should operate. It fails to take into account the concerns of physical commodity sellers and--more importantly--producers. Typically, producers wish to ensure that the uptake of their commodity is continuous, because that minimizes the volatility of the commodity's price. Relationships become all-important under such conditions--but relationships are hardly enhanced by electronic dealing. To quote the November/December 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review, ``Few suppliers want to be anonymous contestants in ruthless bidding wars.''

Premise 2: I can make money selling gains in efficiency

The logic underlying Premise 2 is potentially seriously flawed. For while there is no doubt that market participants are prepared to pay for more efficient services, such as electronic trading, the nature of the forces driving physical energy commodity markets casts doubt on whether a trading system can, in the long term, make a profit by charging per-transaction fees.

Here's why: Although the era of competition is just beginning, it's clear that pressure on transaction fees is already downward, and will remain in that direction even if the number of participants in an exchange shrinks to a handful. In the energy business, the potential for efficiency gains--as a percentage of total industry cost--simply is not that great. For example, research done for Platts, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, indicates that the total potential efficiency ``pool'' in the oil industry is only $150 million/year. Even if only 10 businesses were to try to carve a profitable enterprise out of such a pool, each would be hard-pressed to do so.

What's more, such businesses would have an even harder time turning a profit because some of their competitors wouldn't be using a per-trade revenue model. In particular, sites operated by market participants, such as EnronOnline, will tend to charge nothing per trade, because their business models seek to profit not from commissions on transactions, but rather from the transactions themselves. By implication, it seems likely that an exchange will be able to make money only if its owners sell something else: clearing facilities, back-office integration, or information to decision-makers.

Premise 3: My site will be the best, so it will capture all the market liquidity available

This statement--which essentially says that given enough marketing support, a site can change the trading patterns of an industry to capture all of its liquidity--is a fallacy.

The logical problem with the premise is clear. Because no one has yet developed a trading software package that is clearly superior to others, what ``best site'' really means is ``most liquid site.'' So the pre-condition for capturing ``all'' the liquidity is that the site must already be the most liquid site.

Some startup exchanges have attempted to solve this problem by insisting that their participants make volume guarantees. But volume guarantees conflict directly with traders' focus on profits. Trading businesses that tell their traders to sacrifice profits for the sake of the common good are playing a risky game; if the common good means lower trading profits, the traders will simply leave for greener pastures.

To become the ``best'' site, then, a site must somehow find a way to bootstrap its liquidity, perhaps by offering substantial, non-volume-related incentives or efficiencies to users.

However, the paradox is that most sites' revenue models depend almost exclusively on volume.

Premise 4: Once I capture lots of liquidity, I can build benchmarks

This premise is the most startling and--in some ways--the most flawed of the four. It raises many serious questions, the answers to any of which can invalidate the model. Worse, these questions are all highly theoretical, making persuasive answers even harder to come by.

Among the questions are: -- How much liquidity is enough? -- Do indexes (volumetric averages) make good physical benchmarks? -- Can a trading site benchmark with the bid/offer range? -- Can a trading site generate a close? And, last but not least: What is a benchmark, anyway?

Benchmarks and indices

A benchmark is a price or series of prices that a market's participants agree to use as the basis for determining other prices. Useful benchmarks are good indicators of transactable value. A benchmark allows market participants to determine at what price they should buy or sell the commodity.

Benchmarks are typically used in complex markets with multi-dimensional variables for arbitrage. In oil, for example, benchmark pricing has grown up around the need to compute relative values for differing commodities across time, geographical distance, commodity type, and the degree to which one commodity may be substituted for another.

It is a common error, however, to believe that markets should or do use their most liquidly traded commodities as benchmarks. Although liquidity is a major asset of benchmarks, many markets use illiquid benchmarks whose other characteristics outweigh the liquidity advantage. These include market transparency; the free and open availability of the commodity; the absence of political or partisan control of the commodity; the absence of delivery restrictions on it; and the size of the end-user market where the commodity will be consumed. For example, although the physical volume of Dubai crude oil actually produced is tiny, it nonetheless is used as a key benchmark for all of Asia because--unlike its Persian Gulf competitors--it is the only crude oil that has these characteristics.

One way to compute a commodity's benchmark price is through strict indexation, the process of constructing a price marker from a volumetric average of concluded business. However, this process will have little chance of producing a useful benchmark unless the contributing volumes are high. If it doesn't reflect a sufficient number of trades, an index has little or no statistical validity as an indication of transactable price.

This represents a problem for benchmarking oil prices, whether for crude or products. Of the 77 million barrels of crude produced worldwide each day, the vast majority are sold on the long-term contract market, leaving perhaps as little as 10% to be traded ``spot.'' In reality, this figure is boosted in multiple ways, primarily by transaction chaining--the repeated on-selling of cargos--but, even assuming threefold transaction growth as a result of electronic trading, is still perilously low to be used as a valid basis for strict indexation, especially considering the great diversity of crude oil specifications around the world. For many crude oils, the trading basis for establishing price can be just a few transactions per month. Even for ``liquid'' benchmark crudes, the basis is typically just a handful of trades per day. Oil markets, however, don't seem to care. For example, the settlement basis for the International Petroleum Exchange's Brent crude oil futures contract is an index based on a smattering of
 physical trades taking place on the day of expiry. Acceptance of an indexation mechanism such as this has difficult prerequisites. These include open participation in the mechanism, the perceived existence of a ``level playing field,'' the existence of comparative historical data, and achieving ``buy in'' from the market's dominant players.

The nature of today's on-line exchanges makes these conditions hard to meet. Not everyone uses exchanges; they may be owned by industry players; they typically have little or no historical data; their daily volume fluctuates wildly; and major players' commitment to them is either fragmentary or compromised by volume commitments. In today's environment, the chance that an index will be able to gain market acceptance as a benchmark is extremely slim.

Are strict volumetric indices useful? Another big question surrounding volumetric indices is how useful they are as benchmarks for physical commodities. Advocates of indexation argue that its statistical methodology helps eliminate market distortions caused, for example, by market closes. In addition, they argue that the alternative approach--``market assessment,'' based on human judgements about transactable prices--is too subjective to be relied on to determine benchmark prices. Indexation, its proponents argue, ``eliminates'' this subjectivity.

In practice, however, this argument doesn't pass the ``so what?'' test. Even if a system such as indexation succeeds in taking judgement out of the determination of market prices, it cannot prevent attempts to distort the index by exploiting the ``rules'' on which the system is based.

In many markets, human judgement is the only effective defense against market plays whose goal is profit, not price transparency. Even in highly liquid markets--such as, for example, the monthly natural gas market in the U.S.--the indices generated by information companies like Platts are subject to human review and analysis. During their generation, Platts' market specialists undertake a string of comparative tests to unearth potential distortions in reported prices. Whenever such distortions become apparent, Platts' editors investigate the market further and, where necessary, eliminate certain trades from the assessment picture. There are good reasons for their diligence. A volumetric index can be manipulated by volume plays, by a few players under the cloak of ``anonymous dealing,'' by selective trading, or by hedging in one marketplace and trading in another.

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate how players with exposure to a particular price on the buy side might--and actually do--manipulate a volumetric index. By doing lots of business early in the day when the market is rising, they can skew the volumetric average for the day lower (Figure 1). When the market is falling, they reverse the pattern and shift their transactions to late in the day, again pushing the market down (Figure 2). When players do this consistently, the impact on an index can be considerable over time.

There are other, potentially more serious problems with indices. Because an index is a theoretical construct, in a rapidly moving market it will manifest lag--and become useless to market participants seeking the answer to the question, ``At what price should I buy or sell?'' Indeed, an index may even actively mislead people asking this question. For example, in a fast rising market, an index generated over the course of one day will be significantly below the opening market price on the following day. This creates the impression that prices have somehow moved overnight, whereas in fact they may not have moved at all.

But perhaps the biggest problem with indices relates to their use in heavily interlinked markets, where prices are constrained by a complex of spread and arbitrage values. This description applies to most energy markets, and is particularly apt for today's global, physical market for oil. In markets where spread relationships are as or more important than outright prices, the process of generating averaged indices tends to generate sets of prices that cannot be reconciled with each other.

Figure 3 depicts a dramatized version of this problem. Price 1 and Price 2 are interdependent; here, there is always a 5 cents difference between them. However, the volume pattern for the day's trade (shown in the lower part of the figure) is such that while Price 1 has very high volume early in the day, Price 2 does not enjoy its volume boost until later. The result: Contrary to market reality, the volumetric averages for Price 1 and Price 2 say that they only differ by 1 cents.

Other routes to price discovery

So, if an on-line trading system cannot generate a reliable benchmark from an index, are there other routes to price discovery? Yes, two. The first is to benchmark from a bid-offer range, and the second is to use a close of some kind.

Bid-offer ranges are widely used as market measurement tools by Platts and others. However, the automated application of bid-offer ranges in pursuit of ``scientific'' benchmarks is fraught with difficulty. What happens when there is a bid, but no offer? An offer, but no bid? What rules can be written to discriminate between an ``off-market'' bid and an ``on-market'' one? How should a system decide when a bid or offer's timing is not representative of the typical market? Most on-line exchanges have not even begun to answer these questions, and at best offer their users a ``last bid-last offer'' price range that can accidentally distort their perception of the market, if the two are not aligned in time, or if it turns out, for example, that the ``last bid'' was actually withdrawn in response to the ``last offer.''

Some exchanges, implicitly acknowledging that creating useful benchmarks is difficult, have tried to incorporate their transactions and bid/offers into published benchmarks. Obviously, they hope that their system will attract more liquidity if it is tied to a traditional benchmark. But it's safe to say that a publisher will be interested in incorporating an exchange's proprietary markers only if transaction bid/offers are open and transparent.

Can an on-line site benchmark from a close? In theory, yes. But if human hands and brains intervene, the process is no longer a mechanical one, but rather an editorial/judgement effort. Here too, there are many obstacles. One of the biggest is that closing prices work best in two kinds of markets: completely ``open'' markets, in which assessments are derived by surveying all participants; and ``sole-operator'' markets--like futures markets--where the traded instrument exists only on that exchange.

Physical commodities, by contrast, are traded across a broad spectrum of instruments and sub-markets. It would be virtually impossible for the owner of a single sub-market--or on-line exchange--to assert the superiority of its close over someone else's, or to build market acceptance for a price derived from a trading pool that doesn't include all players.

Even a system used by most players--for example, the oil industry's derivatives-trading Intercontinental Exchange--would have a hard time convincing anyone to rely exclusively on its closing prices. That's not only because ``most'' is not the same as ``all,'' but also because liquidity is frequently too low to assure that there will in fact be a traded market to close every day. What happens to the benchmark on days when no one comes out to play?

In conclusion, it appears that price discovery may not necessarily be an emergent property of on-line trading systems. That may be the case because the creators of most on-line trading systems have confused its mechanism with its function. Trading systems are neither new markets nor new marketplaces; they are simply new vehicles for participating in existing marketplaces. A telephone is also a vehicle for participating in markets--but no one expects their phone to be able to tell them the price of a commodity.

GEB0111600001

   Related Topics:

   Dow Jones Topics
Publication: Global Energy Business

News:
ENGL

    Copyright ? 2001 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC. All Rights Reserved.


Kim,

I would like to either meet with you, or trade e-mails on your current and
possible future target accounts list where GSS may be able to add value to
your efforts.  Since we're ending 2000 and going into a new sales year, I
want to make sure I'm not holding resource open on any accounts which may
not, or should not be on the list of focus accounts which you and your team
have requested our involvement with.  I also want to make sure I'm bringing
resource to bear on the accounts which you DO want to engage.

For example, at one point Siemens was one of them, and with recent
developments, may now be off your list...the last communication I received
from the NYC office re:  Siemens was via telephone call on November 3rd,
where they informed me that the primary opportunity looked like it would be
with one of their medical groups based in Chicago.  After several
unsuccessful follow-up attempts, I placed the Siemens account in the dormant
category.  Yesterday, Jennifer forwarded me information requesting engagement
with your team on CA (Computer Associates) and U.S. Internetworking, and
today American Express has surfaced.  Consequently, I think it's probably a
good idea for me to make sure I'm focused on the right accounts for you.

I realize you may be in PRC today and/or tomorrow, so perhaps Friday would
work?  If not, I would have Monday the 18th available late afternoon, or any
time on December 27th, 28th, or 29th.  When would be good for you?  Please
let me know!

Thank you,

Jeff


Greg,

Happy B-day. Email me your phone # and I will call you.

Keith


David,  What should we do in this situation.  Shonnie 31463
----- Forwarded by Shonnie Daniel/HOU/ECT on 08/28/2000 06:02 PM -----

	Jessica A Wentworth@ENRON
	08/28/2000 05:50 PM

		 To: Shonnie Daniel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Brian Bierbach/NA/Enron@Enron, Ken Choyce/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: vehicle rental in Gillette

Question for you guys - because of our past experience and situation I wanted
to have you guys let me know what to do on insurance.

The Gillette office is going to lease a 4 wheel drive vehicle for 1 month.
The lease is through Enterprise and they are asking if we want them to add
insurance.  Enron doesn't have a corporate rate for Enterprise.  I don't want
to assume anything so should we have them add it or not?

I am checking into trying to lease from Avis because we do have a rental
agreement with them.

Thanks

Jessica

Car Rental Contracts

Rental car contracts for January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000 have been
awarded to:

National Car Rental and Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.

When you rent a vehicle from National or Avis under the Contract, the daily
rental rate includes two kinds of insurance:
Avis, the coverage is $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence, and
$50,000 for property damage.
These coverage's only apply when the vehicle is rented at the contract rate
using the following state contract identifier numbers:

National - 5000838
Avis - A288200


Start Date: 4/11/01; HourAhead hour: 3;  No ancillary schedules awarded.
Variances detected.
Variances detected in Generation schedule.
Variances detected in Energy Import/Export schedule.
Variances detected in Load schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001041103.txt

---- Generation Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblGEN_SCHEDULE.
     Details: (Hour: 3 / Preferred:  34.66 / Final:  20.00)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: TOSCO
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  UNIT_ID: UNCHEM_1_UNIT

---- Energy Import/Export Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 3 / Preferred:  47.00 / Final:  46.99)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTstSW
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  TIE_POINT: MEAD_2_WALC
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_8000
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 3 / Preferred:   8.00 / Final:   7.99)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_BUNNY
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL

---- Load Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 3 / Preferred:   0.43 / Final:   0.29)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE1
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  SC_ID: EPMI
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 3 / Preferred:   4.65 / Final:   3.29)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE2
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  SC_ID: EPMI
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 3 / Preferred:  42.56 / Final:  29.46)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE3
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  SC_ID: EPMI


Hello John,

Your request is complete. Please inform me of any missing desks.
Unless otherwise notified, I will inactivate Carla's record (Desk access) on
Monday, 12/4/00.

***Also, in case of my absence, please cc Kim Theriot's Team (EPMI Deal
Clearing & Documentation)
to submit and follow-up on any of your future requests.

CP/ID        EnPower Access Record

26048        Enron Power Marketing, Inc. - For EPMI Traders using the EnPower
System

       West Power Book / Desk

56849       EPMI Long Term West Management
56847        EPMI Long Term Northwest
56851        EPMI Short Term Northwest
56848        EPMI Long Term Southwest
56852        EPMI Short Term Southwest
56846        EPMI Long Term California
56853        EPMI Short Term California
58315        EPMI Long Term West Transmission
58316        EPMI Short Term West Transmission
58745        EPMI California Pool
58878        California Imbalance
59637        California Power Exchange-Schedule Coordinator
66819        EPMI Short Term West Hourly
70705        EPMI Short Term West BOM
70706        EPMI Long Term West Service
70707        EPMI Long Term West Spread Option

71884        Avista / WWP Supp
71950        Snohomish Supp
71951        Tacoma Supp

Rgds.

Samuel x3-9890
(Global CounterParty_ENA)

	From:  John M Forney                           11/30/2000 07:20 PM

To: Samuel Schott/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Carla Hoffman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject:

Samuel,

Please set up Kate Symes as a trader with access to all of the West power
desks.    She is taking over for Carla Hoffman as a Deal Control specialist.
She frequently has to enter California deals (PX,  ISO,  etc) in addition to
bilateral transaction deal entry.

If you have questions,  please give me a call.

Thanks,
JMF


This request has been pending your approval for  20 days.  Please click http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000080512&Page=Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000080512
Request Create Date : 1/7/02 5:01:54 PM
Requested For       : stephen.benchluch@enron.com
Resource Name       : Market Data Kobra Basic Energy
Resource Type       : Applications


Mark:

I haven't looked at the latest stuff that you have sent because I've had a
problem connecting by remote. I'll be in the office on Friday and will be in
touch with you. Do you intend to provide data from May also? I believe that
this will be very interesting due to higher ambient temperatures. Please
advise if that is possible. Thanks.

Kind Regards,

Tom


-- American Taliban fighter John Walker is on U.S. soil under guard. He landed at Washington-Dulles Airport in Virginia Wednesday evening.
Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com /AOL Keyword: CNN for the latest news.

********** Exclusive CNN Video ************************************
Get access to CNN's web exclusive Quickcast and Uncut.
Watch constantly updated online newscasts and unedited interviews
with Real One. Learn more: http://www.cnn.com/quickcast/bnews
*******************************************************************

To unsubscribe from CNN.com's Breaking News E-Mail Alert, log on to:
http://cnn.com/EMAIL/breakingnews.html, go to http://cnn.com/email to
sign up for additional e-mail products

(c) 2002 Cable News Network, Inc.
An AOL Time Warner Company

CNN Interactive email id:13674185003265495


Here is the most updated file.
PL


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
W E E K E N D   S Y S T E M S   A V A I L A B I L I T Y

F O R

May 18, 2001 5:00pm through May 21, 2001 12:00am
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------

SCHEDULED SYSTEM OUTAGES:

ARDMORE DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages.

AZURIX: No Scheduled Outages.

EB34 DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages.

EDI SERVER: No Scheduled Outages.

ENRON CENTER SOUTH DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages

ENRON NORTH AMERICAN LANS:  No Scheduled Outages.

FIELD SERVICES:  No Scheduled Outages.

INTERNET:
Impact:  Internet
Time:  Fri 5/18/2001 at  10:30:00 PM CT thru Fri 5/18/2001 at  11:30:00 PM CT
 Fri 5/18/2001 at    8:30:00 PM PT thru Fri 5/18/2001 at    9:30:00 PM PT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at  4:30:00 AM London thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  5:30:00 AM London
Outage:  Upgrade IOS on ENEFW4
Environments Impacted:  Internet
Purpose: The new code has bug fixes and stateful failover feature.
Backout: Revert back to old IOS.
Contact(s):  John Shupak          713-853-7943
  Bryan Aubuchon    713-345-8446

MESSAGING:
Impact:  Corp Notes
Time:  Fri 5/18/2001 at  9:00:00 PM CT thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  1:00:00 AM CT
 Fri 5/18/2001 at  7:00:00 PM PT thru Fri 5/18/2001 at  11:00:00 PM PT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at  3:00:00 AM London thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  7:00:00 AM London
Outage:  cNotes Server Reboots
Environments Impacted:  All users on any of the mailservers listed below
Purpose: Scheduled @ 2 week interval
Backout: Make sure server comes up.
Contact(s):  Trey Rhodes  (713) 345-7792

Impact:  EI
Time:  Fri 5/18/2001 at  9:00:00 PM CT thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  1:00:00 AM CT
 Fri 5/18/2001 at  7:00:00 PM PT thru Fri 5/18/2001 at  11:00:00 PM PT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at  3:00:00 AM London thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  7:00:00 AM London
Outage:  EI Notes Server Maintenance
Environments Impacted:  EI Local/Domestic/Foreign Sites
Purpose: Scheduled @ 2 week interval
Backout: N/A
Contact(s):  David Ricafrente    713-646-7741

MARKET DATA:
Impact:  CORP
Time:  Wed 5/16/2001 at  4:45:00 PM CT thru Wed 5/23/2001 at  4:45:00 PM CT
 Wed 5/16/2001 at  2:45:00 PM PT thru Wed 5/23/2001 at  2:45:00 PM PT
 Wed 5/16/2001 at  10:45:00 PM London thru Wed 5/23/2001 at  10:45:00 PM
London
Outage:  Market Data Cable Management EB3460
Environments Impacted:  All Trading Groups
Purpose: Improve computer room environment.  Perform cable management in
order to comply with computer room standards.
Backout: N/A
Contact(s):  John Sieckman    713-345-7862

NT: No Scheduled Outages.

OS/2:  No Scheduled Outages.

OTHER SYSTEMS:
Impact:  Corp, OTS, ETS
DATE:  MAY 29, 2001/2/2001 at  5:30:00 PM
Outage:  Migrate DSS Server to GTHOU-APPSQ03P
Environments Impacted:  DSS users will not be able to access the old server
(ENEDS01_ADAPT)after this date
Purpose: The existing server is outdated, migrating to SQL 2000 provides
increased
functionality and conforms to database platform requirements.
Backout:
Contact(s):  Mary Vollmer          713-853-3381
  Joe Hellsten           713-853-7346      713-545-4164

Impact:  CORP
Time:  Sat 5/19/2001 at  10:00:00 AM CT thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  4:00:00 PM CT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at    8:00:00 AM PT thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  2:00:00 PM PT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at  4:00:00 PM London thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  10:00:00 PM London
Outage:  Moving Production Database TDSPROD
Environments Impacted:  ENA
Purpose: This database is being moved to give the space it is currently using
to the Enpower database on that server.  The new server Refraction will also
allow TDSPROD to expand as well.
Backout: The old instance will be restarted and the TNSNAMES.ORA entry will
be changed to point at the old instance.
Contact(s):  John Jahnke    713-345-4398

Impact:  CORP
Time:  Sat 5/19/2001 at  9:00:00 PM CT thru Sun 5/20/2001 at  12:00:00 AM CT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at  7:00:00 PM PT thru Sat 5/19/2001 at   10:00:00 PM PT
 Sun 5/20/2001 at  3:00:00 AM London thru Sun 5/20/2001 at  6:00:00 AM London
Outage:  Resource addition for server moe.
Environments Impacted:  Sitara, PEP, Global
Purpose: Server is memory and cpu constrained.
Backout: Shutdown the server and revert to old configuration.
Contact(s):  Malcolm Wells    713-345-3716

SITARA:   Also see above
Impact:  CORP
Time:  Sat 5/19/2001 at   2:00:00 PM CT thru Sun 5/20/2001 at  12:00:00 AM CT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at 12:00:00 PM PT thru Sat 5/19/2001 at   10:00:00 PM PT
 Sat 5/19/2001 at  8:00:00 PM London thru Sun 5/20/2001 at  6:00:00 AM London
Outage:  Resource additionto Sitara server aurora.
Environments Impacted:  Sitara production
Purpose: Add needed cpu and memory.
Backout: Remove the newly added resources and restart under the old config.
Contact(s):  Malcolm Wells    713-345-3716

SUN/OSS SYSTEM: No Scheduled Outages.

TELEPHONY: No Scheduled Outages

TERMINAL SERVER:  No Scheduled Outages.

UNIFY:
Impact:  CORP
Time:  Fri 5/18/2001 at  3:00:00 PM thru Sun 5/20/2001 at  11:45:00 PM
Outage:  Unify Power Production Server Maintenance
Environments Impacted:  Unify Users
Purpose: Infrastructure required maintenance
Backout:
Contact(s):  Brian Ripley          713-345-4709
  Charles Ballmer    713-853-0684
  Bob Ward              713-345-4409

SCHEDULED SYSTEM OUTAGES: Australia
Impact:  CORP
Time:  Sat 19-May-2001 at  10:00:00 AM Sydney thru Sat 19-May-2001 at 3:00:00
PM Sydney
 Sat 19-May-2001 at  1:00:00 AM GMT (London) thru Sat 19-May-2001 at  6:00:00
AM GMT (London)
 Fri 5/19/2001 at  7:00:00 PM CT (Houston) thru Sun 5/20/2001 at  12:00:00 AM
CT (Houston)
 Fri 5/19/2001 at 5:00:00 PM PT (Portland)  thru Sat 5/19/2001 at  10:00:00
PM PT (Portland)
Outage: Sydney UPS Test & Service
Environments Impacted:  Corp Sydney - all systems
Purpose: Original UPS needs testing & service. Will require Server Room to be
de-powered to allow maintenance.
Backout: Plug equipment into unconditioned power.
Contact(s):  Colin Wood    +61-416-248-353
  Elliott Katz +61-292-292-309

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
        FOR ASSISTANCE

(713) 853-1411   Enron Resolution Center

Specific Help:
Information Risk Management   (713) 853-5536
SAP/ISC
        (713) 345-4727
Unify On-Call      (713) 284-3757  [Pager]
Sitara On-Call     (713) 288-0101  [Pager]
RUS/GOPS/GeoTools/APRS   (713) 639-9726  [Pager]
OSS/UA4/TARP    (713) 285-3165  [Pager]
CPR      (713) 284-4175  [Pager]
EDI Support      (713) 327-3893  [Pager]
EES Help Desk     (713)853-9797 OR (888)853-9797


Thanks


The following item was presented in this week's corporate change control....
Jan. 3
	From 6:00 - 6:30 p.m., the Corporate server team will move cluster notes nahou-us06 and nahou-us07.  These two nodes will be evicted out of 		there respective clusters and recreated as an application cluster.  No impact is expected.
Jan. 4
		From 3:00 - 4:00 p.m., the Win2000 team will decommission DFS Server NAHOUTRD to replace existing the DFS NAHOU cluster marked for 		Netco.  No impact to ETS users is expected.
Jan. 5
		From 2:00 - 3:00 p.m., the Corporate server team will split the sysAdmiral Fault Tolerance Databases and Master Services on 				NAHOU-BPMS01P and NAHOU-BPMSFT01P. The NAHOU-BPMS01P Database/Master will be used for Estate Scheduling needs and 			NAHOU-BPMSFT01P will be used for Netco Scheduling Needs. The servers may have to be rebooted during this change but no impact to the 		sysAdmiral application is expected.  After the environments are split there will be no more replication between the two servers or Fault Jan. 		Tolerance.
Jan. 7
		From 7:00 a.m. through 1/11 at 5:00 p.m., Facilities will perform the annual maintenance on the rooftop chillers.  The chillers will be taken 		down one at a time during the maintenance.  No impact to ETS is expected.

					ETS Solution Center - Houston       713-345-4745
				          ETS Solution Center - Omaha	         402-398-7454


Heather's b-day is june 24th


I guess this means our relationship comes to and end :(

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Richter, Jeff
Sent:	Tuesday, August 28, 2001 8:50 AM
To:	Chen, Andy; Perry, Todd; Swain, Steve; Savage, Gordon; Bresnan, Neil; Leonard, Chris; Dubash, Geiv; Datta, Samir; Donovan, Terry W.; Stokley, Chris; O'Neil, Murray P.; Coffing, Timothy; Frost, David; Oh, John; Oh, Jeffrey; Ahn, Chris; Watts, Christopher; John, Saji; Segura, Stephanie
Cc:	Chatterton, Jill; Filer, Beverly
Subject:	Administrative Assistants for EWS

Hello Everyone,

Over the past week Debra Davidson and I have been discussing how to operate EWS from the administrative aspect since we have individuals from multiple groups within ENA.  As of today, I would like everyone's travel, expense reports, cell phones, and/or any other administrative needs to go through the following people.

Beverly Filer is your Houston Administrative Assistant.  She is dedicated to providing EWS excellent administrative support while you are in Houston.  This includes preparing your expense reports, arranging meetings, powerpoint presentations, etc.  Beverly's phone number in Houston is 713/345-3134.

Jill Chatterton is your Portland Administrative Assistant .  She is dedicated to providing our EWS group excellent administrative support, whether you are in Portland or Houston.  This includes preparing your expense reports, providing support with cell phones, arranging meetings, making travel arrangements, etc.  Jill's phone number in Portland is 503/464-8216.

Please contact Jill and/or Beverly for ALL of your administrative assistant needs and refrain from asking your previous assistant for support.  Using Jill and Beverly as our assistants will mean they will have more information about our organization which will make them more effective for all of us.  If you have any questions, please contact me.

Jeff Richter                            503.464.3917 (w-pdx)
Enron North America                            503.701.6488 (c)
West Power Services                          503.464.3740 (fax)
121 SW Salmon Street 3WTC0306       jeff.richter@enron.com
Portland, Oregon  97204


FYI -
Duke Energy Field Services will be reworking the Wilcox Plant on 9/26 f rom
7am to 12 noon and will require that HPL shut-in the 20M del. for that time
frame.

Should you have any further questions, please call me at 35251.

Mary


----- Forwarded by Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron on 05/25/2001 05:36 PM -----

	Nancy Bagot
	05/25/2001 05:11 PM

		 To: Shelley Corman/Enron@EnronXGate, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew
Fossum/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert Kilmer/Enron@EnronXGate, Janet
Butler/Enron@EnronXGate, Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen
Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bambi Heckerman/Enron@EnronXGate, Frazier
King/Enron@EnronXGate, Teb Lokey/Enron@EnronXGate, Dorothy
McCoppin/Enron@EnronXGate, Ray Neppl/Enron@EnronXGate, Maria
Pavlou/Enron@EnronXGate, Janet Place/Enron@EnronXGate, Michele
Winckowski/Enron@EnronXGate, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, John
Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron, Carin Nersesian/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Briefing on FERC CA Natural Gas Infrastructure conference

This memo by Nancy Bagot, ETS, and Donna Fulton, Enron Corp, summarizes what
we heard at yesterday's FERC conference and gets to the heart of the issue in
California on the gas side.

The FERC Technical Conference yesterday was held by FERC staff and was kept
to very technical, facility and service issues.  Staff did not allow any
discussion of pricing, because that would be handled in other forums.
Commissioners did not make an appearance at the conference, though some of
their staffers were in attendance.

Like many FERC Technical Conferences, the May 24th conference on California
Natural Gas Transportation Infrastructure boiled down to parties blaming
other parties for the situation in the California market.  Generally, (1)
interstate pipelines and others believe more infrastructure is needed, both
to California and within California   (and some blame SoCalGas, lack of
adequate take-away capacity, failure to provide open access transmission, and
allocation procedures), (2) SoCalGas blames the CPUC and believes that,
although this is a tight year, service commitments will be met and things are
fine, and (3) the CPUC and CEC believe things are not out of control going
forward, that their own open proceedings are adequate to handle any gas
issues in California, and  that CPUC &decisions are coming.8

For FERC Staff, there are two issues at hand: is the problem the mismatch
between interstate and intrastate capacity (and what amount of infrastructure
should be added into and within California), and/or is it the allocation
methodology at a few highly-constrained delivery points into the state.
Overall, there is basic agreement that there are problems with both.

The State

Both the CPUC and the CEC described the intrastate pipeline system as
adequate with just minor changes and enhancements, certainly to serve core
customers and likely to serve non-core customers.  Like the LDCs, the state
representatives are concerned that building to develop a cushion in a
difficult year may not bode well for facilities in &normal8 years in the
future, leaving intrastate capacity stranded.  Also, both agencies ticked off
a laundry list of proposed LDC enhancement projects and regulatory changes
that are designed to improve the delivery system.  According to the CPUC and
CEC, demand in the state is not going to explode ) getting LDC storage back
up to normal levels should make the difference.

FERC Staff questioned  the CPUC and CEC speakers at length on the operations
of the state LDC systems, allocation methods, and the availability of firm
capacity on SoCalGas in particular.  There was great concern among Staff
about the inability for a non-core customer to contract for specific capacity
for primary firm service on SoCal.  The CPUC noted that there is a
comprehensive settlement before the Commission to unbundle SoCal capacity and
allow for tradable primary capacity on an open access system, but the
Commission has not yet acted on that settlement.  When asked why the CPUC has
not acted on the settlement that has been pending for a year, the witness
said that there were not three votes.

The LDCs

Only PG&E and SoCalGas appeared before FERC.  Both were adamant that there
was adequate capacity for current demand, as proven by the lack of
curtailments over the past year.  They also agree that a primary question is
how to agree on the adequate amount of capacity ) though it,s generally held
there should be a 15-20% excess, is that for a normal weather year or a dry
hydro year?

For SoCal in particular, Lad Lorenz claimed that demand would drop in the
next five years, with normal weather and a reduction of EG load which would
bypass their system (being built directly along interstates pipelines).  If
capacity were built to match an excess reserve margin, he wanted to know who
would pay for the capacity.  The central policy question for SoCal comes down
to defining excess capacity and modeling for excess based either on matching
interstate capacity or customer demand (based on contracts).  SoCal believes
it should respond to the latter.  However, the LDC cites the CPUC as an
obstacle for responding to customers, and is looking to the CPUC to accept
its comprehensive settlement which will unbundle its capacity and allow for
tradable primary capacity rights.

For PG&E, the situation is different because it functions very much like an
open access interstate pipeline. It does not have the allocation and
scheduling issues that are on the SoCal system; however, there is still a
mismatch between interstate and intrastate capacity.  PG&E, like SoCal,
claims that its system is adequate to meet current demand, though they are
planning some enhancements. They do agree with SoCal on the difficulty in
planning for uncertainty, but in general the northern California LDC is not
facing the difficulties of its southern counterpart.

Staff questions underscore the more difficult situation on the SoCal system,
as nearly all questions focused on SoCal,s allocation method, firm capacity
availability for non-core customers (which include industrials and electric
generation) and possible disconnects between its local and backbone systems.
FERC also queried about interstate and intrastate mismatches at Topock and
Wheeler Ridge, and whether these would be worsened with the addition of more
interstate capacity.  SoCal consistently answered that its proposed
comprehensive settlement on unbundling would resolve most issues, but the
CPUC will not act on it.

Interstate Pipelines

With every interstate pipeline serving California planning expansions and
four entirely new pipelines on the drafting table, the pipelines call to arms
was for more capacity into the state.  Demand projections by the pipeline
representatives were vast and optimistic, an example being the Sonoran
Pipeline prediction of a 3 ) 4 Bcf shortfall.  And each pipe can point to
booming open season results as proof of the need for more infrastructure.
Posing an obstacle to this infrastructure development is SoCalGas, lack of
capacity and the major problem of allocation ) SoCal currently can only offer
secondary capacity to any new interstate capacity.

FERC Staff agreed that the SoCal allocation is a problem and further proof
that there is a mismatch between intra and interstate capacity.  SoCal
responded that any new interstate capacity at certain desirable points will
only degrade existing service and again blamed the CPUC and the pipes,
allocations.  The other concern expressed by Staff is the divergent demand
forecasts of the LDCs, CPUC & CEC, and the pipelines.

Others

The financial community (Credit Suisse and Merrill Lynch) pointed to a
dysfunctional market in California and told FERC that pipelines must be given
certainty on returns and the regulatory structure.  The message was for FERC
to stay the course, without price caps or changes to the marketing affiliate
rules, and for California to fix itself, especially the CPUC (the weakest
link).

Producers and End Users are concerned that existing shippers, rights are
protected and rates remain unaffected by expansions that may later be
stranded.  There is concern over additional capacity into constrained
delivery points that are already pro rationed, especially in light of the
recent nomination gaming debacle at Wheeler Ridge.

The California Generators claimed that they were not convinced that SoCal
will be unloaded by bypassing EG.  They claimed that there are disincentives
in California regulation to SoCal's building capacity - specifically the
Performance-based Rate mechanism and the Gas Cost Incentive mechanism.  Under
these programs, SoCal gets to keep 50% of peaking service revenues, thus
giving SoCal incentive to advantage their own storage services.  SoCal gets
to keep tens of millions annually under these mechanisms.

Closing Staff Concerns

To wrap up, FERC Staff asked why it is Topock in particular that is always
discussed, and it was explained that access to multiple pipelines at Topock
has set it up as the preferred delivery point into California.  However, with
allocation changes at Topock kicking in, the problems are moving to Wheeler
Ridge.

There was also a debate over which is the real problem ) intrastate capacity
or intrastate scheduling.  SoCal again emphasized that it is not a capacity
issue but the mechanism (blame the CPUC for not approving the unbundling
settlement), California Generators believe it,s all about capacity (blame
SoCalGas).

Future Comments

Comments can be filed in this proceeding by June 25.  Since the SoCal
settlement received so much attention and continues to await action by the
CPUC, should we get supporters of that settlment to file with the FERC
stating that this was a fix to some of the problems on SoCal's  system and
the CPUC has sat on it?

We should find out who is planning to file comments.  Though much was said at
the technical conference, many speakers brought slides, and there was a Court
Reporter, Commissioners and their staffers will not likely read the whole
transcript.  We could file to emphasize the points that are made in
Jennifer's gas talking points.

Future Comments

Comments can be filed in this proceeding by June 25.  Since the SoCal
settlement received so much attention and continues to await action by the
CPUC, should we get supporters of that settlment to file with the FERC
stating that this was a fix to some of the problems on SoCal's  system and
the CPUC has sat on it?

We should find out who is planning to file comments.  Though much was said at
the technical conference, many speakers brought slides, and there was a Court
Reporter, Commissioners and their staffers will not likely read the whole
transcript.  We could file to emphasize the points that are made in
Jennifer's gas talking points.


Steve,

I have not laughed so hard in long time.  Thanks for the refreshing message.

Several definately reminded me of Suggie.

Love you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Bailey [mailto:sbailey@crusescott.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:39 AM
To: Bailey, Susan
Subject: FW: 22 things all dogs need to know

-----Original Message-----
From:	Judy Leslie
Sent:	Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:26 PM
To:	Steve Bailey; JDV
Subject:	FW: 22 things all dogs need to know

22 things all dogs need to know
>
>
> 1. The garbage collector is not stealing my stuff.
>
> 2. I do not need to suddenly stand straight up when I'm lying under
> the coffee table.
>
> 3. If I roll my toys behind the fridge or behind the sofa, they're
> gone.
>
> 4. I can shake the rainwater out of my fur BEFORE I enter the house.
>
> 5. I should not eat the cat's food, either before they eat it or after
> they throw it up.
>
> 6. It is not necessary to find the few remaining pieces of clean
> carpet in the house when I am about to get sick.
>
> 7. The bathroom wastebasket is not a cookie jar.
>
> 8. I should not chew my human's toothbrush and not tell them.
>
> 9. If I chew crayons or pens, especially the red ones, my people will
> think I'm hemorrhaging.
>
> 10. When in the car, I should not insist on having the window rolled
> down when it's raining outside.
>
> 11. Since we do not have a doorbell, I don't have to bark each time I
> hear one on TV.
>
> 12. I should not steal my Mom's underwear and dance all over the
> backyard with it.
>
> 13. The sofa is not a face towel.
>
> 14. My head does not belong in the refrigerator.
>
> 15. I should not bite the officer's hand when he reaches in for Mom's
> driver's license and car registration.
>
> 16. I should not play tug-of-war with dad's underwear when he's on the
> toilet.
>
> 17. If I eat mint-flavored dental floss out of the bathroom garbage,
> my people will think I have worms when they see a string hanging out
> of my butt.
> 18. I am not obligated to roll around in the dirt immediately after a
> bath.
>
> 19. The toilet bowl is not a never-ending water supply.
>
> 20. Sticking my nose into someone's crotch is not an acceptable way of
> saying hello.
>
> 21. The cat is not a squeaky toy, so when I play with him and he makes
> that noise, it's probably not a good thing.
>
> 22. Cat turds are not dog candy.
>


Not bad actually

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Calger, Christopher F.
Sent:	Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:10 AM
To:	Kitchen, Louise
Subject:	Mexico Person?

Mike Miller - LJM
Strong relationship, asset and finance capabilities

Chris Calger
503-464-3735


I would be honored.  Do we meet there or somewhere else?


Nidia:
This is not our current form.  I have asked Susan Bailey  to send you our
current form for this deal.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3892
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)

	Nidia Mendoza
	06/12/2000 02:57 PM

		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: LC format sent to Ferrell International Limited

Please see attached doc.

If this doesn't satisfy legal requirements, please send me the latest format
as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Nidia
x3-4868
fax:  713/853-4868


Hey guys!

Wow - 10 acres - sounds like a ranch!  I'm still working at Enron in Houston
- it's a good size energy company and the subsidiary I work for does a lot of
trading of electricity and energy commodities like natural gas and oil.  I'm
in the legal department and work on derivatives trading contracts and
issues.  I just got promoted a few days ago so I guess things are going well.

I had an e-mail from Paul Palmer a year or so ago and sent a note back but
haven't heard from him since.  Mark Kopinski & I stay in touch - he's in New
York managing a couple of international mutual funds.  He & Debbie adopted a
little girl (Celena) from China and seem very happy living in a high-rise in
the middle of Manhattan.  I get up there on business a few times a year and
try to stop in to say hi.

I was in Monmouth for our 20 year class "reunion" last June.  There were only
2 of us there and I didn't even remember the other guy!  Oh well, maybe the
25th will be a bigger draw.

C.F.&S.,
Mark


[IMAGE]
  Dear Kevin:   Hello E*TRADE Member! As you know, E*TRADE has a wide range of cutting-edge tools and services designed to fit the needs of each individual investor.   With all of these resources at your fingertips, it's difficult to sort through all that's out there to determine which products, tools and services are best suited to meet your financial needs.    That's where we come in! If you'll take a brief moment to tell us about your investment interests, we'll use your feedback to deliver resources that are suited to meet your short and long-term financial goals - not to mention you'll receive a  complimentary copy of Microsoft
 Money 2001!2   Take our short survey today!     We thank you for your feedback and look forward to providing you with investment information designed to fit your financial needs.   E*TRADE the #1 place to invest online.1   Microsoft Money 2001 offer expires on June 5, 2001.
 1 E*TRADE ranked the #1 Internet  broker by the Lafferty Internet Ratings annual survey (9/00).   2  Offer excludes E*TRADE Associates, and non-U.S. residents. You will be eligible to receive Microsoft Money 2001 upon taking the E*TRADE survey. Your complimentary copy will be sent to you within 6 weeks of submitting the survey. E*TRADE reserves the right to terminate this offer at any time. One copy per customer. Offer expires June 5, 2001.      System response and account  access times may vary due to a variety of factors, including trading  volumes, market conditions, and system performance.   HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: You  received this e-mail because you registered on the E*TRADE Web site, or on  one of our partners' sites. If you do not want to receive partner e-mail  offers, or any E*TRADE marketing e-mail, you can change your preferences now.  You are subscribed at: kruscit@ect.enron.com. E*TRADE takes your privacy seriously. To learn more about E*TRADE's use of  personal information, please read our Privacy Policy .   ?2001 E*TRADE Securities, Inc.  Member NASD/SIPC. All rights reserved. E*TRADE, the E*TRADE logo, E*TRADE  Account Express, MarketFlash and E*TRADE Bank are trademarks or registered  trademarks of E*TRADE Group, Inc., or its subsidiaries

[IMAGE][IMAGE]


Frontera is long hour ending 7-11 by 5 mw';s.    This has been scheduled into the North 2001 zone on behalf of Teco Services.    Please sell this power for > $5,  if possible.
Use your judgement - let me know if you have questions.

Please cut the imbalance deal and replace with the new sale.

Thanks,
JMF


---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT on 06/28/2000
05:38 PM ---------------------------

Bryan Hull
06/28/2000 05:35 PM
To: O'Neal D Winfree/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Walters/HOU/ECT@ECT, Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jody
Crook/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Timothy Blanchard/HOU/EES@EES, Chad Landry/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: FW: Grandma Wassup

---------------------- Forwarded by Bryan Hull/HOU/ECT on 06/28/2000 05:36 PM
---------------------------

From:  Cecilia Olvera
    06/28/2000 05:34 PM

To: Bryan Hull/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: FW: Grandma Wassup

---------------------- Forwarded by Cecilia Olvera/HOU/ECT on 06/28/2000
05:34 PM ---------------------------

Alex Saldana
06/28/2000 02:33 PM
To: "Sonya Rodriguez" <sonyardz@hotmail.com> @ ENRON, Nere <nere@myrex.com>,
"marissa merino" <mr0401@hotmail.com>, "Marivel Mercado"
<MMercado@MarathonOil.com> @ ENRON, "Martha Real" <Marthar@mfslcpa.com>,
"Maria Segura" <Marias@mfslcpa.com>, juan lopez <lopey69@yahoo.com> @ ENRON,
Adriana Saldana <asaldana@UH.EDU>, "alicia" <alara@enhancedlaser.com>, "Leal,
Dinorah" <LealD@national-citymortgage.com>, "Jerez, Ernest"
<Ernest.Jerez@usa.xerox.com>, Vanilapuf@aol.com, SMedina@chartertitle.com,
csal314042@aol.com, Stacie.Saldivar@chron.com, "Sandra Martinez"
<MARTINEZ_S@hccs.cc.tx.us>, Cecilia.Olvera@enron.com, sm45818@aol.com, Andrea
R Guillen/HOU/ECT, DKovasovic@aol.com, MBalderas@chartertitle.com,
Heather.Choate@enron.com
cc:
Subject: FW: Grandma Wassup

---------------------- Forwarded by Alex Saldana/HOU/ECT on 06/28/2000 02:36
PM ---------------------------

>
>
>  <<grandma-wassup.mpg>>

 - grandma-wassup.mpg


Thank you, but shouldn't the products be listed as follows.  GD/D PG&E
CtyG-HHUB, PG&E CtyG-Socal, Socal-Malin, PG&E CtyG-Malin.  Please let me know
what you think.  How would the legal description read?

Thanks,
Mike


Dec. 26, 2000
          Teco Tap  30.000 / Enron ; 120.000 / HPL Gas Daily

          LSP HPL Katy I/C    30.000 / Enron


What do you think?  I have never been crazy about the Commercial Support tag myself.  Do you like professional services?  Or do you have another suggestion.  Please send me your comments within the next day or so.  I would like to get back to David Oxley soon.  Thanks.  --Sally

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Oxley, David
Sent:	Friday, June  1, 2001 12:42 PM
To:	Beck, Sally; Colwell, Wes
Cc:	Kean, Steven; Olson, Cindy; Lynch, Drew; Pieper, Kalen; Jones, Robert W.- HR Exec; Barnard, Marla; Joyce, Mary; Smith, Gary; Corteselli, Gina
Subject:	Proposal to Change "Commercial Support" peer group label to "Professional Services"

At the VP PRC meeting last Wednesday, Dave Delainey proposed we consider retitling the Commercial Support peer group as above. Apparently this suggestion was made and broadly supported at a policy committee meeting a few weeks ago. The suggestion is that the Support label is seen rather negatively across the organisation and the new label may be an improvement.

The VP PRC Committee resolved that they would be open to supporting a change, subject to the senior leads from across CS providing their views/support.

I volunteered to circulate this note to the 2 of you in EWS and ask my colleagues from HR to share with their CS leads to solicit their views before returning to the committee late next week with summarised reaction. Perhaps you would provide me with your views and a vote for or against?

I would strongly recommend that we do broadly discuss this outside a small circle of people.

David


Attached are the Friday peer group reports.
DO NOT UPDATE LINKS WHEN THE FILE IS OPENED!
Please call if you have any questions.

Investor Relations

<Embedded Picture (Metafile)>


Let me know whether or not you will be there.  Please try to make it by 9:15.


Tanya:  Do we need to differentiate between the MAC as used in the CSA and in
the Schedule (as an "Additional Event of Default") with respect to the
disappearance of a credit rating from either S&P or Moody's (or both) based
on your usage in power masters?

I believe that we agreed that for purposes of the CSA (when S&P and Moody's
are indicated on the credit worksheet), both ratings must disappear to
trigger the MAC.

For purposes of an Additional Event of Default, should we just pose the
question to credit?

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 04/09/2001 05:47 PM -----

	Edward Sacks/ENRON@enronXgate
	04/09/2001 05:31 PM

		 To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: Cargill Alliant master

It should say either; therefore, if one were to disappear, an Event of
Default would occur.  This was the intent and is probably consistent with
that in the Master Power agmt.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Shackleton, Sara
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:22 PM
To: Sacks, Edward
Subject: Cargill Alliant master

Ed:  For the Additional Event of Default (ratings trigger), do you intend the
MAC to apply when only one or both credit ratings disappear?

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com


As you are aware, Enron utilizes temporary staffing services to satisfy
staffing requirements throughout the company.  For the past several months, a
project team, representing Enron,s temporary staffing users, have researched
and evaluated alternative Managed Services programs to determine which source
would best meet our current and future needs in terms of quality, performance
and cost containment objectives.  The Business Unit Implementation Project
Team members are:

Laurie Koenig, Operations Management, EES
Carolyn Vigne, Administration, EE&CC
Linda Martin, Accounting & Accounts Payable, Corporate
Beverly Stephens, Administration, ENA
Norma Hasenjager, Human Resources, ET&S
Peggy McCurley, Administration, Networks
Jane Ellen Weaver, Enron Broadband Services
Paulette Obrecht, Legal, Corporate
George Weber, GSS

In addition, Eric Merten (EBS), Kathy Cook (EE&CC), Carolyn Gilley (ENA),
Larry Dallman (Corp/AP), and Diane Eckels (GSS) were active members of the
Selection Project Team.

As a result of the team,s efforts, we are pleased to announce the beginning
of a strategic alliance with CORESTAFF,s Managed Services Group.  This group
will function as a vendor-neutral management entity overseeing all staffing
vendors in the program scope. They will also provide a web based online
technology tool that will enhance the ordering and reporting capabilities.
The goal of our alliance with CORESTAFF is to make obtaining a temporary
worker with the right skills and experience easier while protecting the best
interests of the organization.

We plan to implement Phase I of this improvement effective January 2, 2001.
This Phase I of the implementation will encompass administrative/clerical
temporary workers at the Houston locations only. If you currently have
administrative/clerical temporary workers in your department, the enhancement
will not affect their position. In an effort to preserve relationships, all
current staffing vendors will be invited to participate in this enhanced
program.  CORESTAFF shares our commitment to minimize any disruptions in
service during this transition.

We expect to incorporate the administrative/clerical workers in Omaha,
Seattle and Portland in Phase II, which is scheduled for February, 2001.  The
scope and timing of any additional phases will be determined after these two
phases have been completed.

Realizing the impact that the temporary workforce has in business today, we
selected CORESTAFF,s Managed Services Group based on their exceptional
management team, commitment to quality service, and creative solutions to our
staffing needs.  The relationship promises to offer Enron a cost effective
and simple means for obtaining temporary employees.

In the coming weeks, Enron and CORESTAFF,s Managed Services Group will be
communicating to Enron,s administrative/clerical temporary staffing vendors
about the new process.

There are many benefits to this new Managed Services program, which are
outlined on the attached page.  More details on how to utilize CORESTAFF,s
Managed Services program will be announced soon and meetings will be
scheduled to demonstrate the reporting system and to meet the Managed
Services team.

What is Managed Services?

CORESTAFF,s Managed Services program includes:

? Vendor-neutral management model
? Equal distribution of staffing orders to all staffing partners
? Web-based application with online ordering, data capture and customized
reporting
? Benchmarking and performance measurement for continuous improvement
? Methodologies for accurate skill-matching and fulfillment efficiencies

Key Benefits

? More vendors working on each order from the outset ) faster access to
available talent pools
? Standardized mark-ups and fees to manage costs more effectively
? Online access to requisition status for users
? Robust databases offering managers enhanced tracking and reporting of
temporary usage and expenditures
? Standard and customized reporting capabilities -- online
? Tenured, experienced Managed Services team on-site to assist users in
accessing web site, identifying usage trends, preparing specialized reports,
etc.

Corestaff/Managed Services/Staffing

Joseph Marsh ) Lead / Operations (josephm@corestaff.com; 713-438-1400)
Amy Binney, Sharon B. Sellers ) Operations
Cherri Carbonara ) Marketing / Communications
Cynthia Duhon )Staffing Partner management


Folks, could you give me a heads up on proposed bonus #'s for your Canadian
reports when you have a moment?

Thanks
Rob


Wife: Debra (Pager: 713-620-5220)
jkeffer@kslaw.com


"Mark Younger" <mdy@slater-consulting.com> writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE
Discussion List:

Your discussion is based on a misunderstanding.  The $150 price is the
lowest point at which the AMP will check for whether there needs to be any
mitigation.  This price was picked to avoid the AMP running when it is
highly unlikely that any mitigation will in fact be needed.

The $150 price will not trigger mitigation in and of its.  Whenever one of
the zones has a price that is above $150 the AMP will run to determine if
any units have crossed the conduct threshold.  If there are any units that
have crossed the conduct threshold then those units will be set at their
reference bids and the market will be rerun to determine if the impact
threshold has been triggered.  If the impact threshold is triggered in any
zone then the final runs will be done with the mitigated (i.e. reference)
bids for those units that triggered the conduct threshold.  If the impact
threshold is not triggered then the original bids for all units will be
used.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists1.thebiz.net
[mailto:owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists1.thebiz.net] On Behalf Of
Kirkpatrick, Joe
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 9:03 AM
To: nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
Cc: market_relations@nyiso.com
Subject: Automatic Mitigation

"Kirkpatrick, Joe" <joe.kirkpatrick@nrgenergy.com> writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

The NYISO has chosen $150 as representative of a level to trigger market
mitigation. I believe the basis for this was a determination of a price
that was calculated to be representative of the statewide price of $50.
A 300% increase or an increase of $100 is $150, coincidently the same
price.

I am questioning the determination of this price ($50) and its
application in the market mitigation plan.

In determining market power according to the market mitigation plan
specific generator or unit bids are examined to identify economic
withholding. How does the $50 price reference a specific unit, I am not
sure where in the Market Mitigation Plan it says to examine the entire
statewide price and then compare it to a generator's bid.

If a generator's fuel costs (without fixed cost recovery) is $150 that
unit would presumably never bid below its cost, it would always bid as a
minimum $150. How could that generator exceed the thresholds identified
in the market mitigation plan. A 300% increase would be $450 and an
increase of $100 would be $250, and yet using the AMP interpretation of
the mitigation plan the threshold for identifying economic withholding
is $150.
It would seem that the AMP methodology is improperly applying the Market
Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan is supposed to identify generator
conduct and clearly in the application of the AMP it is not.

The simple question would be is the $150 threshold representative of
every generator's bid to determine economic withholding. The answer can
only be no, how can it be?

The Market Mitigation Plan was intended to determine whether a generator
was exercising market power. The determination of whether a generator
was exercising market power would and should take into consideration all
of the prevalent market, unit and system conditions to determine if that
unit was in fact exercising market power. The more complex the system
the more complex the analysis of whether marker power was exercised.

How does a price trigger (or any automatic threshold) take all of the
complexities of a situation into account? It cannot, I suspect that is
why due process is required whether it is a court case or a market power
determination. The full facts are presented and evaluated, every case is
unique and requires deliberation and analysis of every supporting fact.
In other words automatic judgement is not an option and yet under the
NYISO AMP it is offered as a solution.

I do agree that prices should not be posted in the DAM if they are high
as a result of market power. A better solution would be to delay the
prices or hold them in reserve until a proper determination is made. In
the same way that prices are held in reserve for software flaws they
should be held in reserve for determination of market power. Prices can
be posted and flagged subject to change pending review of market power,
at least then due process can be followed. Market participants can be
consulted in accordance with the Plan and if required SCUC can be rerun.

External proxy bus prices may need to be frozen to ensure that flows are
consistent with the orginal DAM posting if a longer period of time is
required for market power evaluation. The AMP is still in place but is
only used to identify potential market power until a "human" evaluation
is done.

Joe Kirkpatrick


I just looked at their sight.  They seem like a reputable company.  It's a
store in Manhattan, NY.  The only thing to be concerned about when ordering
by phone or online is when there is a problem with the unit.  It is more of a
pain in the ass to mail it back than to just take it to Circuit City or Best
Buy.  But a Sony DVD is very reliable and you should not have a problem.  I'd
pull the trigger, that's a great price.

DG

Mike Fultz <Mike.Fultz@HALLIBURTON.com> on 02/12/2001 03:09:08 PM
To: "'dgiron@enron.com'" <dgiron@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Gunshy

Darron,

I am ready to purchase the Sony C670D DVD Player.  I have gone thru CNET.com
and found a three star (highest rating) certified CNET dealer that sells it
for $340  - Tweeter has it for $449 + tax and Circuit City and Best Buy
don't carry this model.  The name of the Internet company is
moreaudiovideo.com.

Did you order yours off the internet and if so from whom?  I am a little
weary about buying something like this off the internet...

Michael Fultz
Machinery Technology
PHONE : (713) 753-4229
FAX :      (713) 753-4132
Email :    Mike.Fultz@Halliburton.com


It is time to get together again. November 2nd is the first Thursday of
the month and Arcadoro's is holding our table from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM. If
you have not joined us at this location, you should give it a try. The
food is great and the company cannot be beat! The address is 5000
Westheimer. This is the corner of Westheimer and Post Oak (the NW corner
of the intersection). It is located below Morton's Steakhouse and valet
parking is complementary.

If you need further directions or have any questions about our get
together, please check out the chapter's web site at
http://users.netropolis.net/bayoucitytigers/.

The Bayou City Tigers joined our sister alumni clubs in Austin to watch
Mizzou play the Longhorns. While we hoped for a different result, it was
still a great opportunity to commune with fellow Tigers. Just like our
Casual Conversations.

If you need information, please feel free to call any of the Board of
Directors (phone numbers are on the web site) or email Bob Hanson:
txhansons@aol.com

Suggestions or feedback is always welcome. See you on Thursday.

This message is brought to you by the MU Alumni Association in an effort
to better inform our alumni of Mizzou events.

If your address has changed or you prefer not to receive email
notifications, please contact the MU Alumni Association at
muaa@mizzou.com or (800) 372-6822.

Become a registered user of the MU Alumni Association website. Only MUAA
members may register to access our online directory, post class notes and
business cards. Register now at: http://www.mizzou.com/firsttimeuser.htm


Sally,

I hope the information in the attached document clarifies how I see myself participating / helping in the task at hand.

If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks - MO


I am really sorry that enron is having a tough time of it
Zimin is turning out to be a veritable treasure -- he is thinking about how to apply options valuation to our discovery driven planning methodology.  It is beyond my capabilities but I have always intuited that this could end up as a very powerful way of handling planning under uncertainty.  I suspect that we could even develop a much needed software product from it


The FERC hearing has started.  You can watch it on:

http:www.c-span.org

For your reference is our note published this a.m.

 <<Political Risk Worsens-Expect FERC Decision Today PDF.pdf>>
<<Political Risk Worsens-Expect FERC Decision Today.doc>>

Raymond C. Niles
Power/Natural Gas Research
Salomon Smith Barney
(212) 816-2807
ray.niles@ssmb.com

s

 - Political Risk Worsens-Expect FERC Decision Today PDF.pdf
 - Political Risk Worsens-Expect FERC Decision Today.doc


Dear Mr. Kaminski,

Dr. Arnold suggested that I get in touch with you for possible employment
after I finish the MBA program. He was not certain as to the exact
position(s) for which I would be considered and recommended discussing it
with you further. I have an undergraduate degree in Finance in which I was
exposed to a formal derivatives class, and I am currently in Dr. Arnold's
real options class. Additionally, I have had some working experience with
this class of securities. Please find attached a copy of my resume (Word
format).

If you have any questions, I can be reached via email or at 225-266-6200. I
am looking forward to speaking with you.

Thank you,
George T. Moss

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
 - resume.doc


Kate,

If you log in as myself, you can pull up the EOL JF Report that you were
using originally.

Carla

   Kate Symes                01/03/2001 05:42 PM

To: Monica Lande/PDX/ECT@ECT, Valarie Sabo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Fran
Chang/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike
Swerzbin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matt Motley/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tom Alonso/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark
Fischer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sean Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Diana Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carla Hoffman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Phillip
Platter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Mallory/PDX/ECT@ECT, Michael M
Driscoll/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeremy Morris/PDX/ECT@ECT, Bill Williams III/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: EOL Summary - Still Under Construction

I'm continuing to work with IT in Houston in an attempt to restore the EOL
Report to its former glory. They are making several changes to the report
which seem to result exponentially in glitches. As of right now the
application will not create any kind of file with any kind of data; hence the
absence of any kind of report. I will keep you informed of our progress.

Thanks for your patience,
Kate


Track the new systems in the Caribbean and Atlantic
with position maps, satellite and radar images or post
your forecast: http://www.GoPBI.com/storm?tag=e_1029

000
WTNT35 KNHC 300245
TCPAT5
BULLETIN
TROPICAL DEPRESSION FIFTEEN ADVISORY NUMBER   2
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MIAMI FL
10 PM EST MON OCT 29 2001

...TROPICAL DEPRESSION MOVING SLOWLY NORTHWARD AND PRODUCING HEAVY
RAINFALL OVER NICARAGUA AND HONDURAS...

ALL INTERESTS IN THE NORTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA SHOULD
CLOSELY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.

AT 10 PM EST...0300Z...THE CENTER OF TROPICAL DEPRESSION FIFTEEN
WAS LOCATED NEAR LATITUDE 13.9 NORTH...LONGITUDE  83.5 WEST OR
ABOUT 15 MILES...20 KM...SOUTH OF PUERTO CABEZAS ALONG THE COAST
OF EASTERN NICARAGUA.

THE DEPRESSION IS MOVING TOWARD THE NORTH NEAR	5 MPH...7 KM/HR...
AND A GRADUAL TURN TO THE NORTH-NORTHWEST OVER NORTHEASTERN
NICARAGUA AND EASTERN HONDURAS IS EXPECTED OVER THE NEXT 24 HOURS.

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR  35 MPH... 55 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER
GUSTS.	LITTLE CHANGE IN STRENGTH IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT
24 HOURS.

ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE IS 1005 MB...29.68 INCHES.

SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED IN EASTERN
HONDURAS AND NORTHEASTERN NICARAGUA.  ADDITIONAL RAINFALL AMOUNTS
OF 10 TO 15 INCHES...250 TO 400 MILLIMETERS...ARE POSSIBLE...AND
THESE RAINS ARE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE LIFE-THREATENING FLASH FLOODS
AND MUD SLIDES.

REPEATING THE 10 PM EST POSITION...13.9 N... 83.5 W.  MOVEMENT
TOWARD...NORTH NEAR  5 MPH.  MAXIMUM SUSTAINED
WINDS... 35 MPH.  MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...1005 MB.

FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA...PLEASE MONITOR
PRODUCTS ISSUED BY YOUR LOCAL WEATHER OFFICE.

THE NEXT ADVISORY WILL BE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER
AT 4 AM EST...TUESDAY.

FORECASTER STEWART

Make GoPBI.com's Storm Warning Center your No. 1 resource for hurricane
and tropical storm updates: http://GoPBI.com/storm

To subscribe or unsubcribe from this list, visit our Web site:
http://GoPBI.com/storm/email

DO NOT REPLY to this email. If you have questions or comments,  send
them to storm@cimedia.com

Brought to you by GoPBI.com: http://GoPBI.com

You can contact us by mail or telephone at:
GoPBI.com
2751 South Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach FL 33405
(561) 820-3700

Copyright 2001 Cox Interactive Media


Lincoln
The following requests resulted from our site visit to Lincoln Plant on
October 20, 2000:
1. We have received a CD with Project Drawings.  We will be reviewing
them shortly.  Please send Seimens drawings when available.
2. Please provide documents that contain operating budget for Lincoln.
3. Please provide the O&M contract with Operational Energy Corporation.
4. Please provide water chemistry analysis for wells or identify
document on DealBench.
5. Please provide copy of standard operating procedure for the plant.
6. Please provide equivalent starts and equivalent base hours for all
CTs.

 Wheatland
The following requests resulted from our site visit to Wheatland Plant on
October 20, 2000:
1. We have received a CD with Project Drawings.  We will be reviewing
them shortly.  Please send Seimens drawings when available.
2. Please provide documents that contain operating budget for Lincoln.
3. Please provide the O&M contract with Operational Energy Corporation.
4. Please provide copy of standard operating procedure for the plant.
5. Please provide equivalent starts and equivalent base hours for all
CTs.
6. Please provide engineering details of RTU module and associated
equipment used for plant dispatch.
7. Please provide any available information on Westinghouse contract.
8. Please provide chart and guarantee curves for CTs.
9. Please provide your calculations supporting the 902 hour annual
operating limit.
10. Please status of NPDES application and any associated
correspondence.


Dear Steve and Bill,

In case you have not already seen it, I thought you might be interested in
the recent posting on a French website of an announcement of Andre LeGallo's
departure from Enron and some commentary about the company's purported links
to the CIA and the US political establishment.

This website can be accessed at www.intelligenceonline.com.  It is believed
to be published by French persons with close connections to the French
security services and also, reportedly, to Israeli intelligence.  The
website includes free content (of which this report was a part) and premium
content available on a subscription basis only.  The Andre LeGallo posting
could reflect the purely detached academic/professional interest of the
publishing entity.  It is also worth considering that it would be a
convenient document for one of your competitors to pass on to a foreign
government with whom you might be negotiating, particularly if that
government had elements or constituencies sensitive to the perception of
links to U.S. intelligence.

Please let me know if you would like any further information on this matter.

Best regards

Edward

(INTELLIGENCE NEWSLETTER #376 - 17/02/2000)
UNITED STATES : Enron Loses Intelligence Star
The U.S. gas and electricity utility Enron has parted ways with Andre Le
Gallo who was in charge of dealing with the group's most sensitive cases. A
former CIA official known for his extreme discretion, Le Gallo quit the
Houston-based company in January to open his own business intelligence firm,
AJL Global Risks Solutions.
His recent departure was known to only a few North American consultants. In
his job as Enron's vice president for security, Le Gallo had worked behind
the scenes on all of the difficult cases facing the group that required
maximum confidentiality.
Some believe his career with Enron served to underline the close links that
reportedly exist between the company and the CIA. The first claims to that
effect were made in the early 1990s when Kenneth Lay, founder and president
of Enron appeared as a major financial backer of then-U.S. president George
Bush. It was said Enron won favors from the American intelligence community,
with the White House's blessings.
One instance supposedly occurred in June, 1992 in India when Enron's local
affiliate Dabhol Power Company won the right to operate on huge gas
resources at Maharashtra near Bombay, in highly controversial circumstances.
At the time, Indian political leaders suspected the American ambassador in
New Delhi, Franck Wisner, of having asked the CIA station chief in the
Indian capital to ensure Enron won the contract. A few years later, on Dec.
15, 1997, the same Franck Wisner was named a director of Enron Gas & Oil Co.
In a further example of ambiguous links, the State Department is accused of
also backing Enron in 1993 in negotiations for a contract to restore oil
wells on the Shuaiba field in Kuwait that had been damaged during the Gulf
War. Enron got the contract even though its bid was less advantageous than a
lower bid submitted by Germany's Deutsche Babcock. The existence of ties
between the former Bush administration and Enron can be seen in a new light
in view of the coming presidential campaign in the U.S. According to a
report by the Federal Election Commission, Bush's son --George W. Bush --
has already used an aircraft owned by the Enron company seven times since he
began his race for the presidency.

Copyright 2000 Indigo Publications
Reproduction or dissemination prohibited under any form whatsoever
(photocopy, mailing lists, intranet, etc.) without written permission of the
editor.
Indigo Publications - 142 rue Montmartre, 75002 Paris, France
Tel. : +33 1 44 88 26 10 - Fax : +33 1 44 88 26 15
Email : webmaster@IntelligenceOnline.com
<mailto:webmaster@IntelligenceOnline.com>

Edward Grubb
http://www.crg.com
phone: +1 (703) 893 0083 ext. 203
fax: +1 (703) 893 1836
email: Edward.Grubb@control-risks.com

This e-mail contains priviledged and confidential information intended for
the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not
disseminate it, copy it or take any action in respect of any information
contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail and immediately destroy this e-mail and
its attachments.


please save as document in BPA legis file
-- Forwarded Message --

>
>
> Mary -- As we discussed.
>
> Craig
>
>Craig Gannett
>Davis Wright Tremaine
>2600 Century Square
>Building
>1501 4th Ave.
>Seattle, WA 98101
>Ph: (206) 628-7654
>Fax: (206) 628-7699
>E-mail:
>craiggannett@dwt.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gannett, Craig
>> Sent: Monday, July 24,
>2000 4:50 PM
>> To: 'Moeller, Phil';
>'Stier, Jeff'
>> Subject: Colluquy II
>>
>>
>>  Phil and Jeff -- As we
>discussed.
>>
>>  Craig
>>
>>  ****************
>>
>>
>> FEDERAL POWER
>MARKETING
>> ADMINISTRATIONS AND
>REGIONAL TRANSMISSION
>ORGANIZATIONS
>>
>>  Mr. CRAIG.  Mr.
>President, I would like to
>engage in a colloquy with
>> the Chairman of the
>Energy and Water
>Development Appropriations
>> Subcommittee and the
>senior Senator from
>Washington to clarify the
>intent
>> of legislative language in
>Section 319 of H.R.4733.
>>
>>  Mr. DOMINICI.  Mr.
>President, I would be pleased
>to discuss this
>> provision with my friend,
>the Senator from Idaho.
>>
>>  Mr. GORTON.  As would
>I, Mr. President.
>>
>>  Mr. CRAIG.  Mr.
>President, one of the Power
>Marketing
>> Administrations, BPA, is
>working with other
>transmission-owning electric
>> utilities to file with the
>Federal Energy Regulatory
>Commission in October
>> a document evidencing an
>intent to form a regional
>transmission
>> organization in the
>Northwest.  It is my
>understanding that this
>language
>> would give BPA the
>authority to engage in the
>activities necessary to
>> making that filing.  Is that
>correct?
>>
>>  Mr. DOMINICI.  Mr.
>President, the gentleman
>from Idaho is correct.
>>
>>  Mr. GORTON.  I concur,
>Mr. President.
>>
>>  Mr. CRAIG.  It is also my
>understanding that the
>Department of
>> Energy is currently of the
>opinion that no further
>legislation would be
>> needed in order for BPA to
>actually participate in a
>Northwest regional
>> transmission organization.
>However, issues may arise
>as a result of the
>> October filing, or
>otherwise, that would
>necessitate further
>legislation
>> before BPA participates in
>the Northwest regional
>transmission
>> organization.  If such
>legislation is necessary,
>would the Chairman and
>> the Senator from
>Washington be willing to
>work with me to enact it
>> expeditiously, so as to not
>delay the actual operation
>of the Northwest
>> regional transmission
>organization?
>>
>>  Mr. DOMINICI.  I would
>be pleased to work with the
>Senator from
>> Idaho, the Senator from
>Washington, and other
>members of the Northwest
>> delegation to assure
>expeditious enactment of
>any such necessary
>> legislation.
>>
>>  Mr. GORTON.  I, too, am
>committed to prompt
>enactment of such
>> legislation, if needed.  I
>think it is crucial that
>Congress facilitate,
>> rather than impede or
>delay, the formation of a
>regional transmission
>> organization for the
>Northwest.
>>
>>  Mr. CRAIG.  I thank the
>Senators.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig Gannett
>> Davis Wright Tremaine
>> 2600 Century Square
>Building
>> 1501 4th Ave.
>> Seattle, WA 98101
>> Ph: (206) 628-7654
>> Fax: (206) 628-7699
>> E-mail:
>craiggannett@dwt.com
>>
>>


KJ


After our IOS adventure last week, I put together the following questions
that need to be resolved.  Some of them have needed to be resolved for quite
some time.  Tony, let's talk since I think some of these have already been
discussed and maybe resolved in the context of developing TW's EnronOnline
site, and I just need to get up to speed.  To the extent there aren't answers
yet, I'll get busy researching.  Drew -- comments?  Shall we all get on the
phone & discuss this?

List of TW contracting issues

1.  Reevaluate the following in the context of current FERC negotiated rate
policy:

 a.  Transwestern's current form discount letter states:  "[t]he total charge
shall include all applicable surcharges."   Should this language be revised,
and if so, how?

 b.  Transwestern usually charges one-part rates, and includes language in
its discount letter stating that Transwestern shall allocate the combined
rate between the reservation and commodity components inclusive of
surcharges.  Are one-part rates really negotiated rates?  material deviations
from the tariff?

 c.  Transwestern's discount letter includes a statement that in no event
shall the contract rate be greater than the maximum or lower than the minimum
rates provided in Transwestern,s tariff.  This was intended as assurance that
the contract is not a negotiated rate.  Is this language still effective?
necessary?

2.  IOS/EnronOnline:

 a.  When should IOS be conducted, if at all?

 b.  Once notice of IOS or EnronOnline bidding has been posted, can the
subject capacity still be sold off-line (i.e., pursuant to traditional
bidding procedures)?

 c.  Is our system for IOS and EnronOnline set up to handle max rate bidding
situations in a nondiscriminatory manner and in compliance with the bid
evaluation procedures in the tariff?  If not, what changes need to be made?


Hello Fletch:

Sorry to bother you with this, but I really do not know of any applications
outside of our internal apps and thought maybe you would know.

Let me know.

Thanks and enjoy the New year.
Daniel

QUESTION:

I have a little project on the side:

Q: Any way to get a copy of a tuned down version of  their crack crude oil
 gasoline, heating oil futures arbitrage spread program/ position keeping,
 profit and loss software for my hedge fund I am putting together?

     Their currency trading position keeping system? or hedge trading system

     they have a ltd partnership futures/ spot position keeping profit and
loss position keeping system

     if not there: is there a small set of vendors you know of through your
     experience that offer trading position keeping and mark to market with
     prices from online internet pricing firm exchanges that would update
positions of my hedge fund.

"Employ your time improving yourself by other men's writings so that you
shall come easily by what others have labored hard for." ~Socrates


This deal is in "Pending - revised after sent to Ctrpty" status.  Some
changes have been made to the deal, but it still has an SP-15 delivery point
with Firm Energy.  Can you please find out whether it's the delivery pt. or
the energy type that is wrong?
Thanks for your help!
Kim


fyi--clearly, this was the "right thing to do."  But keep in mind that
Transredes does not have a great credit rating.
----- Forwarded by Rob Walls/NA/Enron on 12/13/2000 12:16 PM -----

	Randy Young
	12/12/2000 06:33 PM

		 To: Miguel Mendoza/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ECT
		 cc: Louis Soldano@ENRON, Michael Moran@ENRON, Eileen Kisluk@ENRON, Gail
Brownfeld/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Bruce Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob Walls/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: Garner litigation

Excellent.  Thanks.

Miguel Mendoza@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
12/12/2000 05:19 PM
To: Randy Young@ECT, Louis Soldano@ENRON, Michael Moran@ENRON, Eileen
Kisluk@ENRON, Gail Brownfeld/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Fernando Gonzalez@Transredes

Subject: Garner litigation

Guys:

Just wanted to let you know that the Transredes board approved today to
indemnify Enron for any legal expenses incurred in connection with the suit
filed in Texas by Garner in exchange for a taking an active role in managing
the litigation. The vote was 6 against one.

Fernando will be working together with Eileen and the gas pipeline guys in
drafting the final agreement.

I guess this is good news for all the parties involved in this case.

Regards,

Miguel


John:
I have not received it by fax or e-mail yet.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3892
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com

	"Shuttee, John" <ShutteeJ@EPEnergy.com>
	06/27/2000 04:16 PM

		 To: "'Carol.St.Clair@enron.com'" <Carol.St.Clair@enron.com>
		 cc: "Shuttee, John" <ShutteeJ@EPEnergy.com>
		 Subject: RE: EP-Enron ISDA Guaranty

Did you ever get our Guaranty?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shuttee, John
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:37 AM
> To: 'Carol.St.Clair@enron.com'
> Cc: Shuttee, John
> Subject: EP-Enron ISDA Guaranty
>
> Sorry, I thought I had.  Here it is.
>
> John
>
>  << File: EL  Guaranty 5-23 (Enron Form).doc >>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Carol.St.Clair@enron.com [SMTP:Carol.St.Clair@enron.com]
>  Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:18 AM
>  To: Shuttee, John
>  Subject: RE: Enron ISDA Final Draft 6-23
>
>
>  John:
>  Please send the Guaranty attachment.
>
>  Carol St. Clair
>  EB 3892
>  713-853-3989 (Phone)
>  713-646-3393 (Fax)
>  carol.st.clair@enron.com
>
>
>
>
>                      "Shuttee,
>
>                      John"                To:
> "'Carol.St.Clair@enron.com'" <Carol.St.Clair@enron.com>
>                      <ShutteeJ@EPE        cc:
>
>                      nergy.com>           Subject:     RE: Enron ISDA
> Final Draft 6-23
>
>
>                      06/26/2000
>
>                      03:32 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Carol,
>
>  Enclosed is our adjusted guaranty that we had previously altered to
> meet
>  your requirements (sorry I didn't send this initially). Please see
> if this
>  is good for you.
>
>  John
>
>  PS:  Where is "receipt" you discussed below?  Page 1 of which
> document?
>   <<Enron Guarantee Format - 5-23.doc>>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From:   Carol.St.Clair@enron.com [SMTP:Carol.St.Clair@enron.com]
>  > Sent:   Monday, June 26, 2000 1:03 PM
>  > To:     Shuttee, John
>  > Subject:     Re: Enron ISDA Final Draft 6-23
>  >
>  >
>  > John:
>  > The Schedules look fine.  Just one minor chnage which I can maker.
> In
>  the
>  > form of LC, I'm deleting the words "Rider 1" at the bottm and in
> the last
>  > paragrpah of page 1, chnagung the word "receipts" to "receipt".
> We will
>  > generate and send to you execution sets.  With respect to the
> Guaranty,
>  we
>  > would prefer that you sue the fopm which I sent to you a few weeks
> ago.
>  > Here it is.  This form is our updated form and matches up with the
> Enron
>  > Guaarnty that we are giving you.
>  > (See attached file: EL  Guaranty 5-23 (Enron Form).doc)
>  >
>  > Carol St. Clair
>  > EB 3892
>  > 713-853-3989 (Phone)
>  > 713-646-3393 (Fax)
>  > carol.st.clair@enron.com
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >                     "Shuttee,
>  >
>  >                     John"                To:     "'Carol St
> Clair'"
>  > <Carol.St.Clair@enron.com>
>  >                     <ShutteeJ@EPE        cc:     "Shuttee, John"
>  > <ShutteeJ@EPEnergy.com>
>  >                     nergy.com>           Subject:     Enron ISDA
> Final
>  > Draft 6-23
>  >
>  >
>  >                     06/26/2000
>  >
>  >                     08:29 AM
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Carol -
>  >
>  > Enclosed are what I hope will be the final drafts of the Schedule,
>  > Paragraph
>  > 13, LC provisions, and Schedule 1.
>  >
>  > I have accepted and incorporated the new changes you made plus all
> the
>  > changes which we have agreed upon.  I also changed the
> presentation of
>  our
>  > address in Part 4a of the schedule - it's the same information
> presented
>  > in
>  > a more concise way.  Finally, I changed the signature block on the
>  > schedule
>  > to eliminate EPME-Gas Company (it no longer exists) as a 'general
>  partner"
>  > -
>  > I don't know where that came from.
>  >
>  > Also enclosed is our version of the Guarantee.  Please let me know
> if any
>  > other changes are required.  If not, let's proceed with execution
> copies
>  -
>  > let me know if you want to generate them, or if you want me to.
>  >
>  > John
>  >
>  >  <<Enron Schedule -Our Draft 6-23.doc>>  <<Enron CSA - Our Draft
>  > 6-23.doc>>
>  >  <<EP Guarantee Format - 6-23.doc>>
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ******************************************************************
>  > This email and any files transmitted with it from El Paso
>  > Energy Corporation are confidential and intended solely
>  > for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>  > addressed. If you have received this email in error
>  > please notify the sender.
>  > ******************************************************************
>  >
>  > (See attached file: Enron Schedule -Our Draft 6-23.doc)
>  > (See attached file: Enron CSA - Our Draft 6-23.doc)
>  > (See attached file: EP Guarantee Format - 6-23.doc)
>  >  << File: EL  Guaranty 5-23 (Enron Form).doc >>  << File: Enron
> Schedule
>  > -Our Draft 6-23.doc >>  << File: Enron CSA - Our Draft 6-23.doc >>
> <<
>  > File: EP Guarantee Format - 6-23.doc >>
>
>  (See attached file: Enron Guarantee Format - 5-23.doc)
>   << File: Enron Guarantee Format - 5-23.doc >>