|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Michael D Contant <mcontant@cypressasset.com< X-To: Martin.Cuilla@enron.com X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Martin_Cuilla_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: Cuilla-M X-FileName: mcuilla.nsf From where do the alligations of price fixing stem? M Martin.Cuilla@enron.com wrote: < California is going after the owners of the generation facilities and < trying to hit them with a one time tax for making too much profits. We < don't have any generation but if the politicians don't get enough money < from them they might try to fuck with gas companies also. Quite frankly < they are stupid because no one is going to build new generation in < California or anywhere on the borders because of the political climate and < the consumers are going to get fucked because that is really what they need < - more generation. There are some really conviencing articles that it pin < point the electricity supply demand imbalance to be caused by computer < usage in Silicon Valley and throught California. By the way gas in < southern california is selling for $18 - $19 which is easily 4 to 5 times < higher than they have ever seen prices before this year. < < Michael D Contant <mcontant@cypressasset.com< on 11/30/2000 10:51:15 AM < < To: Martin.Cuilla@enron.com < cc: < Subject: Re: [Fwd: Bernstein Natural Gas Summary (with the right < attachment)] < < What happened with that California electric price fixing thing?? < < M < < Martin.Cuilla@enron.com wrote: < < < Below is the NYMEX futures curve for 2001. We are up almost $.40 in < < January and $.15 for the back Apr - Dec. This thing is just getting < < started! < < < < Jan 6.56 < < Feb 6.35 < < Mar 5.81 < < Apr - Oct 4.85 < < Nov 4.84 < < Dec 5.00 < < < < Michael D Contant <mcontant@cypressasset.com< on 11/30/2000 10:14:46 AM < < < < To: Martin Cuilla <Martin.Cuilla@enron.com< < < cc: < < Subject: [Fwd: Bernstein Natural Gas Summary (with the right < attachment)] < < < < Bernstein is working on it, he'll be back to me today. I think your < < theory is correct based on what little work I've done so far. < < < < M < < < < "Mahedy, John P." wrote: < < < < < < < < < < < yes < < < < < < I had asked my colleague duane grubert who will cover some of those < < < names to answer the question. I will track down the answer again and < < < forward it to you. I incorrectly assumed that he had done it < < < already. My apologies. < < < < < < -----Original Message----- < < < From: Michael D Contant [mailto:mcontant@cypressasset.com] < < < Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:27 PM < < < To: Mahedy, John P. < < < Subject: Re: Bernstein Natural Gas Summary (with the right attachment) < < < < < < Mr. Mahedy: < < < < < < Have you had a chance to look at my question of lat last week, I know < < < you've < < < probably been working on this very attachment?? Names (cap-agnostic) < < < with a < < < largely (70% or more) or completely unhedged natural gas position? < < < < < < Thanks again for your time, < < < Michael Contant < < < < < < "Mahedy, John P." wrote: < < < < < < < < Comments on New Data < < < < < * Based on the data for the week ended November 24, 2000, < < < inventories < < < < < for natural gas decreased by 146 bcf to 2502 bcf. This draw was < < < greater < < < < < than the forecast of 93 that we made last week based on the < < < outlook for < < < < < weather and a downward adjustment of 25 for lower holiday demand. < < < Based < < < < < on actual weather the expected draw would have been 128. < < < < < * Looking forward, based on current weather forecasts for the < < < week, we < < < < < expect a draw of 79 bcf. < < < < < * The inventory data is bullish, particularly in light of high < < < prices < < < < < relative to substitutes that should theoretically be having a < < < negative < < < < < impact on switchable demand. Also of note, the pattern of higher < < < than < < < < < expected inventory builds that were pointing toward a modest < < < supply < < < < < response was not present. < < < < < * Gas prices have continued to show strength relative to < < < substitutes, < < < < < which should adversely affect gas demand. FRAC spreads have gone < < < down 34% < < < < < sequentially. SPARK spreads have gone down 12% sequentially, < < < negative for < < < < < gas demand in the short term. < < < < < * The CFTC index on speculative positions of gas traders rose < < < over the < < < < < past week but remains broadly neutral. In other weekly data, < < < nuclear < < < < < utilization moved up 7% sequentially but is up 2% year over year. < < < Coal < < < < < shipments were up 1% sequentially and down 4% year over year. < < < This week's < < < < < total electricity output was the highest ever recorded for this < < < period. < < < < < < < < < < John Mahedy (212) 756 4474 < < < < < <mailto:mahedyjp@bernstein.com< < < < < < < < < < < <<112900GASREPORT.pdf<< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < ------------------------------------------------------------------------ < < < < < < < Name: 112900GASREPORT.pdf < < < < 112900GASREPORT.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) < < < < Encoding: base64
|