|
|
Enron Mail |
Qatar, UAE Dolphin Proj Gas Price About $1.30/M BTUs-MEES
Dow Jones International News, 05/07/01 The `dis-investment' climate Business Standard, 05/07/01 Many find Lanier still making sense Houston Chronicle, 05/07/01 Pay increases for state's top CEOs Associated Press Newswires, 05/06/01 India: Why Dabhol makes sense for Reliance Business Line (The Hindu), 05/06/01 India: Agenda for fresh talks with Enron chalked out Business Line (The Hindu), 05/06/01 Darkness triumphs The Times of India, 05/06/01 Should we persuade Enron to stay on? The Times of India, 05/06/01 Irrigators say utility must provide them cheap power Associated Press Newswires, 05/05/01 Professionals' Safer Picks Paid Off Last Quarter International Herald Tribune, 05/05/01 Godbole committee meets sans DPC representation Press Trust of India Limited, 05/05/01 Energy Executives Make Millions Selling to Deregulated Market in California KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: The Orange County Register - California, 05/05/01 Qatar, UAE Dolphin Proj Gas Price About $1.30/M BTUs-MEES 05/07/2001 Dow Jones International News (Copyright © 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) DUBAI -(Dow Jones)- The fiscal price for natural gas from Qatar's North Field to be supplied on a CIF basis under the Dolphin project to Abu Dhabi is around $1.30 per million British Thermal Units, the Middle East Economic Survey reported Monday, citing sources. The price includes the basic production price agreed on by Qatar Petroleum (QP) and the UAE Offsets Group, or UOG, plus the costs of compression and transportation of the gas through a 350-kilometer pipeline along with seasonal adjustments for peak demand, MEES said. The Dolphin project is a $3.5 billion deal agreed to two years ago by UOG and QP aimed at sending 2 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas from Qatar's offshore North Field, piped by sea to Abu Dhabi and also for onward delivery to Dubai and possibly Oman. MEES said the $1.30 per million BTU price will also be subject to 2% annual escalation. Qatar had hoped for a higher basic price but instead, an agreement was reached whereby upward adjustments were made to the quantities of liquids stripped from the gas under the prospective production sharing agreement, or PSA, thereby increasing Qatar's revenue, MEES added. QP and Dolphin Energy Ltd., or DEL, a subsidiary of UOG, signed a term sheet agreement in March for the upstream section of the project. The next step will be for the two parties to sign the full PSA for the 2 billion cubic feet a day to be delivered over 25 years to the U.A.E. The term sheet specified the PSA would be signed by September at the latest, MEES said. TotalFinaElf (F.TFE) and Enron Corp. (ENE) each hold a 24.5% stake and UOG a 51% stake in DEL. TotalFinaElf is to operate the upstream phase of the project, which includes developing natural gas reserves in two blocks of Qatar's giant offshore North Field, in which the first wells are scheduled to be drilled in the second half of 2001 and come onstream in 2005. Enron will focus on gas transportation, which requires building the 350-kilometer pipeline from a processing plant in Ras Laffan, Qatar, to the Al-Taweelah terminal in Abu Dhabi and the Jebel Ali terminal in Dubai. A further phase of the Dolphin project will cover the delivery of an additional 1 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas, if it is deemed feasible. MEES said the foreign partners have yet to agree on the precise details of their working relationship and on the price of the pipeline. TotalFinaElf and DEL have said Enron's estimated price for the pipeline is too high. Sales and purchase agreements with U.A.E. customers are also not yet concluded. -By Dyala Sabbagh; Dow Jones Newswires; 9714 3314260; dyala.sabbagh@dowjones.com Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The `dis-investment' climate A V Rajwade 05/07/2001 Business Standard 10 Copyright © Business Standard In last week's article, I had expressed reservations about the 6/6.5 per cent real GDP growth projected for the current fiscal year. Recent events in the Indian political economy do impinge on the credibility of governance, and may worsen the investment climate. A few years back, central ministers were talking of a $ 10 billion inflow of foreign direct investment by the turn of the century. The century has turned but the investment flow is stagnant at a quarter of that. Consider some of the recent decisions, and their after-effects. The central government, having sold Balco to Sterlite, is unable to deliver. The strike continues and the poor chief minister of Chhattisgarh, whose wife had to apply for a petrol pump licence to keep home fires burning, remains as partisanly recalcitrant as ever. Surely future bidders for public sector assets, particularly in Chhattisgarh, will remember Balco. The very limited response to the privatisation of Indian Airlines, Air India, MTNL, VSNL, and so on could well translate into low prices. Nor would the recent controversy over WiLL (wireless in local loop)be found reassuring by intending investors, whether foreign or domestic. The telecom sector has probably attracted more foreign investment than any other, one of the biggest investors being Hutchison of Hong Kong. After the decision of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on the issue, Hutchison had announced that it will suspend further investment in the country. This seems unlikely to change after the more recent labours of the curiously acronymed GoT-IT. Mr Paswan's argument that WiLL is "pro poor" is difficult to swallow when the instrument reportedly costs more than a cell phone! The cellullar phone operators are obviously unhappy and have gone in appeal and Mr Sivasankaran is offering to pay Rs. 2,500 crore for a quarter of the WiLL-space offered free to basic telephone operators. What a mess! The hesitation of investors to come into the country would also get affected by the way the Enron affair gets resolved (more on this in a later article). Incidentally, on the subject of the general direction of economic policy, unions sponsored by participants in the ruling alliance were themselves part of the previous week's strike. Indeed, the BJP's own union boss has criticised the direction of government's policies, and so has the RSS. Mr Gurumurthy of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch has termed the GoT-IT deliberations on WiLL a "fraud on (the) people". If the leading party in the ruling coalition does not enjoy the confidence of its own followers/parents (who seem closer to the Congress or the left on issues like WTO, privatisation or foreign investments), what credibility would it carry with investors, foreign or domestic? Nor does there seem to be any effort to explain the rationale underlying the policies to the people. Apart from the general climate, some specific decisions in terms of foreign investment are equally puzzling. Daewoo was denied permission to convert its dues from the Indian company into equity. Why? Would the government prefer the money to go out if and when Daewoo India regains its health? In another recent instance, four different applications of Shell, the giant oil company, were rejected on one day. From what has appeared in the press, it is difficult to appreciate the rationale. One of the more curious reasons was that one Shell application, if cleared, would have contravened a Gujarat government law the interesting part is that the seller of the equity to Shell, to buy which the investment application was made, is a Gujarat government undertaking! Frankly, the ostensible reason for rejection seems less than convincing, more so when all such approvals are in any case subject to all applicable laws! If there are question marks about the climate for direct investment, whether domestic or foreign, whether for greenfield projects or privatisation, one wonders whether the happenings in the equity market and the suddenly hyperactive Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) would dampen portfolio investors' enthusiasm as well. For a student of the financial markets, Sebi's recent stance and summary punishments look to be in sharp contrast with its deafening silence when the index registered a very sharp rise up to 6,000 last year. Or is it that only sharp falls, and not sharp rises, are prima facie pointers of malpractices? All the affected parties have denied the charges and appealed to the courts. Meanwhile, the FII inflows have held up well. But for how long particularly if the action against CSFB is not backed by a transparent and convincing case? (To be sure, CSFB hardly has a lily-white reputation in the last couple of years alone, it has faced the wrath of regulators in Japan, UK, Scotland, US and Switzerland). And, with external debt flows likely to be negative in the current year, equity inflows are important to our balance of payments. Not all signs are negative, particularly in the IT sector. Conseco, the big insurance company, has announced the takeover of a major call centre and is transferring a huge amount of back office work to India at a cost saving of $30 million. (Incidentally, if workers of the world were to unite as they have nothing to lose but their chains, our trade unions should be protesting against the Conseco move in keeping with their anti-globalisation stance). Major IT companies like Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, and others have announced that the recent slowdown in the US will not affect their plans in India. Indeed, Hewlett-Packard and Lucent are adding staff here. But, even in IT, one would be foolish to ignore the potential competition from China. It is importing 20,000 English language teachers, which will negate our major competitive advantage. It is far ahead of us in hardware (exports $ 20 billion in 2000), telecommunication and other infrastructure, and catching up in software (exports $ 3.6 bn last year). As it is, we are 41st in 49 countries analysed in the recent World Competitiveness Yearbook, down two notches from the last survey. If the general climate and credibility remain where they are, we can bid goodbye to even 6.5 per cent growth did the prime minister say 9 per cent? Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May 7, 2001 Houston Chronicle Many find Lanier still making sense By JOHN WILLIAMS It's a phrase much copied around Houston, one that tells it like it is without telling it all -- "That's my sense of it." When he was mayor, Bob Lanier repeated it so often that a passel of politicians and pundits, business leaders and bureaucrats began emulating it, at times mimicking Lanier's whispery baritone. Since then, "That's my sense of it" or "My sense is" have evolved into staples of Houston political jargon. On the surface, the phrase appears blunt, that the teller is speaking exactitudes. When Lanier used it to describe his observations, the message was straight to the point. But it's a good phrase, especially for a politician, because it provides a back door. The person using it is implicitly saying "this is true based on current information." New information can catalyze a new sense of things. Though Lanier was term-limited from office in 1998, his sense of things continues to be solicited by power brokers and wannabes. Lanier is constantly on the horn, advising those tapping his sizable knowledge base. Advice for bits of gossip In recent weeks, Lanier has offered strategy to all three major mayoral candidates -- incumbent Lee Brown and City Council members Chris Bell and Orlando Sanchez -- as well as to one who decided not to run, City Controller Sylvia Garcia. He chats with people dallying with the 2003 mayoral race, with those watching water, transportation and downtown development issues. Those who call Lanier from time to time include former President Clinton, Gov. Rick Perry and Enron Chairman Ken Lay. Sanchez calls Lanier "The Oracle," after the Greek deities who answered the questions of mortals. People call Lanier offering observations and gossip in return for advice. Ring-kissing by visiting devotees assuages his sizable ego. Lanier's unique background -- he's been a sports reporter, lawyer, developer, banker, state Highway Commission chairman and mayor -- provides different vantage points for his observations. He can think through problems on different levels, decipher problems in politics, finance, development or public policy. If knowledge is power, Lanier at times appears more the powerhouse than his successor. Brown doesn't seem to enjoy the social and intellectual gamesmanship Lanier relishes. Lanier gabs with journalists, professors, lobbyists, pollsters and others who provide a sense of the city's intricate political balance of power. "It's just not Brown's shtick," said a lobbyist close to Lanier and Brown. "Part of being a good political player is the love of talking gossip." Lanier's penthouse home atop The Huntingdon in River Oaks serves as a Tibetan mountaintop for those seeking total political consciousness. Lanier and wife Elyse throw parties for political players of all ilk who allow him to remain a clearinghouse of information. Keeping a hand in deals Lanier continues to influence local decision-making. He pieced together a downtown convention hotel deal between the city and developer Gerald Hines. The downtown rail system is going down Main and Fannin largely because of Lanier. Afraid Lanier would rise to swamp a broader rail plan for the entire region, Metro officials pared down their vision to a level Lanier would accept. Metro Chairman Robert Miller is a regular visitor at the Laniers' home. Lanier was key in developing the Greater Houston Partnership's recent comprehensive program for preserving mobility. Lanier's current sense is that Houston is healthy, striding to address transportation, water supply, air pollution and other problems. Brown should win re-election, unless continued bumbling like a recent pothole scandal create a critical mass of negative publicity. Either way, at age 76, gimpy knees, problematic heart and all, Lanier will be at the center of most civic discussion. In the end, Lanier's lasting legacy may be the knowledge and wisdom he passes to the next generation of Houstonians. At least, that's my sense of it. Pay increases for state's top CEOs 05/06/2001 Associated Press Newswires Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. ST. PAUL (AP) - Paychecks for the highest-paid chief executives in Minnesota are on the rise, but they still lag behind those of corporate leaders elsewhere, according to a published report. In a survey of the 100 largest publicly held corporations in Minnesota, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press found the 10 highest-paid chief executives received a total of $230.1 million in 2000, the newspaper reported Sunday. That's up 71 percent from the $134.6 million the state's top 10 made two years earlier. The 1998 total was up 171 percent from 1993. William McGuire of UnitedHealth Group was the highest-paid chief executive in Minnesota, making $54.1 million in a package that included exercised stock options. The highest-paid chief executive in the country - Citigroup's John Reed - made $293 million in total pay in 2000, according to a national survey in Business Week. The lowest-paid among the magazine's top 20, Enron's Jeffrey Skilling, pulled in $72.5 million - 29 percent above McGuire's compensation. The Pioneer Press survey also found that total cash compensation, which excludes gains from stock options and other long-term pay, rose 14 percent last year. That compared with an 18 percent gain for executives in the Business Week survey. "The figures are troubling," says John Stout, an attorney with the Minneapolis law firm of Fredrikson & Byron. Stout serves on the advisory board of the National Association of Corporate Directors, and is a former president of the association's Minnesota chapter. "There is a general perception that boards of these big companies aren't doing their jobs when it comes to CEO compensation." Stout stresses that his comments apply to the overall picture. Looking at the pay alone at any single corporation is not enough, he says, noting that the performance of these companies is also a key consideration. The chief executive data breaks total pay into three categories: salary and bonus payments for 2000, long-term compensation and stock options. The Minnesota survey counts options as pay in the year that an executive exercises his or her right to buy the stock. Other surveys count options in the year that they are granted, plugging in standard formulas to estimate their future value. Long-term pay is mostly compensation in the form of "restricted stock" - outright grants of shares. Typically, these grants carry a requirement that the executive must stay with the company to receive the shares. Pay packages have rocketed in recent years, mostly because executives have won sizable stock options. As the stock market has soared, so has the value of their options. Last year's pay packages in Minnesota illustrate the importance of stock options. At UnitedHealth Group, salary and bonus payments accounted for only about a seventh of McGuire's overall package. The rest came from options exercised. Options provided an even greater portion of overall pay for other top-paid chief executives in Minnesota. The new pay survey for Minnesota shows that 13 chief executives landed sizable gains, at least 25 percent, in cash compensation - salary and bonus - last year. Meanwhile, the salary and bonus total fell significantly for just five chief executives. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. India: Why Dabhol makes sense for Reliance 05/06/2001 Business Line (The Hindu) Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) - Asia Intelligence Wire "ENRON will always consider a legitimate proposal to sell an asset if it makes strategic sense but we are not currently pursuing the sale of our stake in Dabhol Power Company." - A spokesperson of Enron India "Enron is still running Dabhol Power Company. They are our partners in oil exploration. We look at value propositions as and when they arise. We have an open mind" - Mr Anil Ambani to a question if Reliance was interested in taking over the Dabhol powerproject. TO BE sure, there is nothing to suggest that it could be happening yet. At least there is nothing in the public domain. But ever since word started going around that Enron may sell its stake in Dabhol Power Company (DPC) there has been intense speculation that Reliance could be among the frontline contenders. The Reliance Industries Managing Director, Mr Anil Ambani's statement is the only official comment on the subject to date. And it neither confirms nor denies the speculation in the market. It is indeed significant that Mr Anil Ambani has not categorically ruled out Reliance's interest in DPC. But why should the Reliance group be interested in DPC? How does Dabhol fit into the group's plans? In other words, how does it make sense for the oil-to-petrochemicals major to consider buying out Enron from DPC if the opportunity arises? Acquiring DPC would make eminent strategic sense for the Reliance group. The 2,184 MW power plant and the associated LNG (liquefied natural gas) import and regasification facility fit in well with its growth plans in the power sector and in petrochemicals too. Power is one of the focus areas in the Reliance group's future expansion plans. But it has not been able to make serious progress in either the mega 3,960 MW project in Hirma, Orissa, or in the 447 MW Patalganga project due to diverse reasons. While the Hirma project is bogged down in sovereign guarantee issues, the Patalganga project is held up with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) declining to provide escrow cover. In this backdrop, DPC's state-of-the-art, operational power plant presents a great opportunity for Reliance Power to make its mark. The project is at the right stage from an acquirer's viewpoint. One part of it is already operational while the other is set to go on-stream in a few months time. All the funds due from lenders, save a small part, have been disbursed and construction is almost completed. So no major project management problems here. The only sticky point is the dispute over the power purchase agreement (PPA). But a new promoter can facilitate a review of the PPA and its controversial terms. Besides, it may be easier for the Government to take a fresh look at the project once Enron is out of the picture and is replaced by an Indian company. LNG project, the clincher The Dabhol project assumes added strategic importance due to the associated LNG import terminal. Reliance plans to set up LNG import facilities on the Gujarat coast. The LNG business is a long-term proposition by its very nature. The key to its success lies in tying up the entire chain from the gas source and liquefaction facility to cryogenic transport, import terminals/regasification plant and, finally, finding assured buyers for the gas. The tricky part is identifying the gas supply source and a collaborator with the financial strength to set up the liquefaction and export terminals. The final challenge is to tie-up dedicated gas consumers in the vicinity of the import terminal. On all these counts the Dabhol project is the best bet. It already has an assured gas supply source in West Asia. The LNG transporting vessel is almost ready in Japan and will be delivered by November. The critical point here is that all the exploitable sources of natural gas in the West Asia are tied up by one buyer or the other and any new LNG importer on India's west coast may find it difficult to find fresh supply sources. The Dabhol LNG project assumes additional importance having tied up its supply source. Besides, DPC has installed LNG capacities much in excess of the needs of the power plant. It has close to 5 million cubic metres of capacity when all it would need is about 2.1 million cubic metres for power generation. This extra gas can be sold to industries in the Gujarat/Maharashtra belt which are hungry for energy. More important, from Reliance's viewpoint is that this gas can be used to operate its Patalganga plant where fuel cost is an issue. All it would need to do is lay pipelines from the import terminal to the hinterland. The natural gas can also be piped to its Hazira petrochemical complex where it runs a mother cracker that can operate on naphtha or natural gas. It is presently operating on naphtha, which is notorious for its volatile price swings. One of the factors behind the fall in earnings growth of Reliance Industries in the last quarter of 2000-01 was the high naphtha cost. Reliance can overcome such handicaps if it is able to shift to natural gas for the cracker. Thus, whichever way one looks at it, the Dabhol project appears an excellent strategic fit to Reliance and its business plans. Enron has denied any plans to exit from the project now but it has not ruled it out for all time. The multinational is turning its focus to energy trading and broadband businesses and its chief is on record saying that it should not be operating power plants in Third World countries. Given the troubles that it has encountered in the Dabhol project, it would not be surprising if Enron exits at some future date. But that is assuming that it gets a good price for all the assets created and the trouble endured. Therein lies the rub in the entire deal. If Reliance is able to offer that "good price" then it may land up with a strategically excellent acquisition. All these are possibilities. As of now, both Enron and Reliance would like to lie low and deny any interest in a courtship, at least in public. Raghuvir Srinivasan Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. India: Agenda for fresh talks with Enron chalked out 05/06/2001 Business Line (The Hindu) Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) - Asia Intelligence Wire Mumbai, May 5. OFFICIALS of the State Government, Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and members of the Madhav Godbole committee, which recently submitted its review on the Dabhol Power project, met here on Saturday. The meeting was to "chart the agenda for renegotiation with Enron officials," a senior MSEB official said. Enron officials were scheduled to attend this meeting but backed out on May 3. Enron had informed the State Government that it would not accept the recommendations of the Godbole committee. Our Bureau Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Darkness triumphs 05/06/2001 The Times of India Copyright (C) 2001 The Times of India; Source: World Reporter (TM) MEN & IDEAS / Gurcharan DasThere is no use pretending that the departures of N.K. Singh and Montek Singh are not going to hurt. They are. The two men are very different. Montek is an elegant economist and NK is a natty networker who knows how to turn every screw in the government's machine. But both are reformers. N.K. Singh has been transferred from the Prime Minister's Office, where he coordinated the PM's economic agenda, to the Planning Commission. Montek is leaving to head the Independent Evaluator's office for the International Monetary Fund. Earlier, he was finance secretary, where he had spearheaded many an economic reform ever since the summer of 1991. Both men have fallen victim to the RSS and the swadeshi lobby. Although Muralidhar Rao and Dattopant Thengadi may have precipitated NK's recent departure, all anti-reformers are delighted. The communists, the leftists, the Samatas and the Mamatas, and the considerable forces of darkness in the Congress would rather live with inefficient and corrupt public sector monopolies than have anything to do with competitive markets. Montek's achievements are well-known, but NK too leaves a considerable record of reform, culminating in the recent path-breaking budget with dramatic reforms in labour, agriculture, and industrial policy. It contained both Vajpayee's and Sinha's reforms, and was a product of teamwork between North and South Blocks. NK's networking skills with the ministries were crucial. He has left a mark on many Vajpayee initiatives: the current momentum in building highways, the new "open skies" policy (held hostage for so long by the civil aviation ministry), the decision to lease five major airports, the new energy behind ports privatisation, the resolution of the telecom tangle via an excellent telecom policy -- the ruckus over WiLL notwithstanding, and the soon to be announced liberalisation of drugs price control. Against these successes is failure in the power sector and the Centre's inability to get the states to reform SEBs. The lack of initiative on Enron is also inexplicable. India cannot afford to let Enron blow up and destroy our credibility with the world. At one go we could lose our reputation for honouring contracts. Remember, Enron's board members, James Baker and Kenneth Lay, are George W. Bush's closest friends. Reforms don't happen without reformers. Even the most reform-minded minister needs a reforming officer to help build pro-reform coalitions in the bureaucracy, the party and in Parliament. Few realise A.N. Varma's stellar role when he was Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's secretary. His legendary Thursday meetings with economic secretaries became the crucial instrument for the blistering pace of reform between 1991 and 1993. Varma was a terror and ran his committee tightly. No one was allowed to travel on Thursdays. The committee met for only two hours, when the reform in question was openly discussed. Varma summarised and minuted the outcome and the reform proposal was taken to the cabinet for approval, and then on to Parliament. Many of us remember our excitement in those golden years as a new reform was announced every week. Just as Narasimha Rao had Varma, so Manmohan Singh had Montek. Chidambaram had Jairam Ramesh, and Vajpayee had N.K. Singh. These minister-officer partnerships have been crucial in making reforms happen. Those who criticise the PMO for becoming too powerful forget that in our political model, ministries are independent and someone has to coordinate our chaotic government. It used to be the cabinet secretary, but when you want strategic management of change, then you require initiative and pro-activity. Who knows, a powerful, hands-on secretary might have been able to prevent the Fifth Pay Commission disaster -- the lowest point in our economic history of the 1990s. To our worthy anti-reformers, who are gloating over NK's and Montek's exit, I ask: How can you oppose the work of reformers who are trying to, for example, reduce the theft of electricity by employees of the state electricity boards? If this theft is reduced from 30 per cent today to only 18 per cent, there will be enough capital to build sufficient new power capacity. But the only way to stop thievery is by privatising distribution, for no private distributor will allow his power to be stolen. Thieves don't steal power in Mumbai and Calcutta because distribution is private. Our anti-reformers retort, "Don't privatise power, just catch the thieves!" Well, for fifty years we have not been able to catch them. Should we wait another fifty? Think about this: The next time you oppose reforms and reformers you vote for public sector thieves rather than competitive markets. Liberalisation is not a matter of ideology. It is common sense to want clean, uncorrupt services. The only losers in privatisation will be thieves and lazy workers. The winners will be the Indian people. Comment: gurcharandas@vsnl.com or Post Box 3046, New Delhi 110003 Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Should we persuade Enron to stay on? 05/06/2001 The Times of India Copyright (C) 2001 The Times of India; Source: World Reporter (TM) IN BLACK & WHITE / Harry DhaulYes. Renegotiate by all means, but honour the deal If Enron is the sole evil in the power sector, I would say remove it from India. If that solves the myriad problems of our industry, farmers and consumers, go ahead and ask Enron to leave. But it won't solve the underlying problems, will it? I am not holding a brief for Enron, but suppose you ask the company to leave. What next? It is only another way of postponing decisions which electricity boards have to take anyway. Though facts and figures have been thrown around about how much India would gain if Enron were to leave, I assure you our liabilities would be much more. There would be penalties to pay for various contractual obligations. In all this talk, most people forget one thing -- the sanctity of a contract. Is there a rule of law in this land? This kind of commercial deal is done the world over. If a government can't honour a contract and that too the biggest India has got, how can you expect anybody else to do so? Okay, if the forces operating in the market have changed and the contract needs to be renegotiated, do so. But is it fair to tell a company after a few years: Sorry, please pack up and leave? Especially a company which has stuck to all the conditions of the contract. And imagine what this will do to foreign direct investment in our country. Is this the climate which foreign companies would want to be thrown into? I don't think so. Having said this, there is still ample scope for renegotiation on the commercial terms. The tariffs can be brought within reasonable limits and there are reasons for this. Firstly, gas prices are going down, so we can get a good deal out of this project. Secondly, the prices of gas turbines have also gone down and we should be able to benefit from it. Thirdly, the efficiency of gas turbines has gone up by nine per cent. This will bring down the cost of electricity. Of course, critics of Enron will say the power generated is costlier than that generated within the country. But that's natural considering the amount of power bought is less than optimal. Once this quantity goes up, the rates will come down and be on a par with government power projects based on liquid fuels like the National Thermal Power Corporation in Kerala. The tariffs, contrary to popular notion, of both are in a similar range -- Rs 4-5 per kilowatt hour. But is NTPC being paid for the power it generates? No. The basic mistake lies with our policy-makers who allowed such power projects based on liquid fuels. Even thermal power, generated by NTPC, costs Rs 1-1.50. But this is not being paid for by state governments. What's the justification for that? State electricity boards have to pay close to Rs 26,000 crore to central power-generating units -- Rs 17,000 crore has to be paid to NTPC. So how will the scrapping of the Enron project help? Despite all this, there is severe power shortage. Renegotiation would help restore some of the lost confidence among foreign investors. The deal can and should be improved in national interest. And more importantly, the government should honour it. How can you penalise a company which has brought the largest investment into the country? Also, if Enron leaves, what about its assets here? Of course, somebody could buy it but again the question arises: Will they be paid? Will asking Enron to leave help our electricity sector? This kind of mob mentality that targets Enron won't help matters. Our power utilities should be improved first. (Harry Dhaul is D-G, Independent Power Producers Association. He spoke to Shobha John) Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Irrigators say utility must provide them cheap power 05/05/2001 Associated Press Newswires Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) - PacifiCorp is headed back to court with the cooperative of eastern Idaho irrigators that wants to use the utility's transmission lines to carry cheaper power bought from another company. PacifiCorp missed a May 1 deadline to appeal last October's 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the utility cannot use an Idaho statute to protect itself from being sued under federal antitrust law. The appellate ruling opened the door to electric deregulation in Idaho, which has had some of the cheapest power rates in the nation. That prospect prompted a special legislative session last December to close that loophole. That action was ratified during last winter's regular legislative session. But the legislation does not affect the PacifiCorp battle with the irrigators. And the missed deadline clears the way for a jury trial in federal court to determine whether the utility and its Utah Power & Light subsidiary have been in violation of federal antitrust law in their dispute with the Snake River Valley Electric Association. The cooperative wants PacifiCorp to supply its power at the same rates the group negotiated in 1997 with Texas-based Enron. The Enron contract lapsed when it became obvious the court case would preclude any wheeling of the outside power through PacifiCorp transmission lines. Association spokesman Carl Palmer pointed to a statement made by PacifiCorp lawyer David Jordan, who at a hearing in 1997 said, "I am committing PacifiCorp to provide wholesale power at the same rates and on the same terms to Snake River as the Enron contract, the same length of time, same price." If PacifiCorp is required to meet the terms the cooperative arranged with Enron, the cooperative initially would be able to buy electricity at $18.75 per megawatt hour. The rate would rise to $25.13 per megawatt hour by the end of the five-year agreement - still about one-tenth the current wholesale market price. "As soon as the lawsuit is settled, they're bound to sell us this power," Palmer said. PacifiCorp Spokesman Dave Eskelsen said the company's position is that it is not obligated to let the association use its lines, and that the company is not violating antitrust law with its refusal. The utility has filed a petition with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, seeking support for its stance. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. MONEY REPORT Professionals' Safer Picks Paid Off Last Quarter Anne Bagamery International Herald Tribune 05/05/2001 International Herald Tribune 15 (Copyright 2001) EAT WELL or sleep well. The process of buying stocks requires an investor to make many choices along the way, but they all boil down to that one: whether to buy shares in companies that may bring huge rewards, but at a certain risk, or to make safe, steady bets that would not keep anyone awake at night. Professional investors, however, try to have it all: They want to recommend stocks that will pay off handsomely for themselves and their clients, but they also want to narrow the odds. That is why analysts and money managers spend their days (and sometimes nights) researching the fundamentals of an industry sector, or poring over technical charts, or listening to Alan Greenspan to try to divine the next macroeconomic trend. Sometimes the market throws a curve, and all that hard work goes for naught. But sometimes it pays off. The first quarter of 2001 was one of those times. Of the 92 stocks recommended by professionals in The Money Report in the first three months of the year, 52 rose in price by the cut-off date of April 27 an astounding record, considering the carnage in world stock markets during January, February and March. Otherwise, 38 stocks fell, most of them at the high end of the technology spectrum. Among the notables, XTL Biopharmaceuticals PLC, the biggest decliner in the period, fell more than 51 percent, and Cisco Systems Inc., a bellwether for the Internet economy, tumbled 24 percent. Rounding out the picture, of the remaining two equities, Boeing Co. was unchanged from the price at which it was recommended, and Enron Corp. was mixed: Investors who bought shares in the huge engineering company on Feb. 10, when they were recommended at $80.20, would have booked a 21 percent loss by the end of April, while those who waited until March 31 to jump in at $58.10 a share would have made 9 percent. It would be tempting to conclude that the overall record shows the wisdom of choosing staid, boring old economy stocks over flighty, unprofitable new economy parvenus. It is true that in the first quarter, the safe bets usually paid off. Unilever NV, the British-Dutch consumer products giant, and Wal- Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, rose 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively, in a quarter when neither did much of anything except take care of business. Rakuten Inc., a Japanese Internet retailer that was the darling of the market last April, had come to earth by this year: Its shares, recommended as a turnaround play in February, fell 25 percent. - Nowhere was the contrast between bricks and clicks more pronounced than in the Lehman Brothers Inc. list of "10 Uncommon Euro Values," featured in the Feb. 24 issue. Of the 10 stocks recommended, six tumbled, including such technology brand names as Alcatel SA (down 19.7 percent) and Siemens AG (down 1.5 percent). Logica PLC, a British technology-consulting concern, was the biggest loser, falling 31 percent. The four that rose are in plain-vanilla businesses such as supermarkets (Ahold NV), electricity (ENI SpA), cars (PSA Peugeot Citroen SA) and Lemsip (Reckitt Benckiser). The folks at Lehman did set a good example for individual investors by diversifying, picking stocks in a variety of sectors from six countries, and emphasizing that these were stocks to buy and hold for the year, not flashes in the pan. Speaking of good examples, special mention should go to three analysts whose astute stock-picking stood out in the first quarter: Howard Ward of Gabelli Growth Fund. With mergers and layoffs and chaos swirling all around media stocks, it takes a courageous person to recommend AOL Time Warner Inc. and Viacom Inc. But Mr. Ward, who participated in the previous quarter's investment roundtable, sifted through the industry wreckage and noted that while the stocks of AOL and Viacom had been battered, the companies' business models remained intact meaning that, fundamentally, they were still doing something right. AOL shares rose 16.6 percent; Viacom's, 4 percent. Bill Greiner of UMB Financial Corp.'s UMB Bank. Energy stocks, as a group, were some of the best performers, helped along by a rise in oil prices and the salutary effects of a wave of mergers two years ago. Mr. Greiner identified winners in a range of industry subsectors, including integrated oil (BP Amoco PLC, which rose 12 percent in the period), gas (Apache Corp., up 9 percent) and oilfield services (Halliburton Co., up 6.5 percent, and Schlumberger Ltd., up 10 percent). Richard Davidson of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. Asked to identify European stocks resistant to a slowdown, in the Feb. 17 issue he named some solid winners and refreshing logic. He recommended two cable-television companies, Sogecable SA of Spain and Telewest PLC of Britain, reasoning that people without the money to go out could always stay home; Sogecable rose 18 percent, while Telewest slipped 1.7 percent. He also suggested two tobacco stocks, Altadis SA of Spain and Swedish Match AB, reasoning that the last thing a financially struggling smoker would give up was the habit. Swedish Match rose 19 percent, while Altadis fell 8 percent. Finally, Mr. Davidson recommended a pair of security-services companies Securicor PLC of Britain and Securitas AB of Sweden because he reckoned that in tough times, people might have less wealth than before, but they would want to hang on to whatever they had. Securitas rose 4 percent, while Securicor slipped 3.6 percent. - ONE group of prognosticators that did not find fortune in the first quarter were the shorts, analysts who recommended stocks to sell or avoid. This is a high-risk game in the best of times a wrong bet can have theoretically unlimited losses but it is particularly nerve-wracking in a reluctant bear market such as the current one, when pockets of optimism keep peeking through the gloom. Of the six companies mentioned as fundamentally lacking in value or prospects, four rose: Banca di Roma SpA, Body Shop International PLC, General Electric Co. and National Express PLC. The other two, Natexis Banques Populaires and Pepsi Bottling Group Inc., had mild losses. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Godbole committee meets sans DPC representation 05/05/2001 Press Trust of India Limited © 2001 PTI Ltd. Mumbai, May 5 (PTI) The Godbole committee, set up for renegotiating the estranged Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between US energy major Enron -promoted Dabhol Power Company (DPC) and the state electricity board (MSEB), Saturday held its first internal meeting sans representatives of the multinational. "It was an internal meeting to take stock of the current situation and decide on matter pertaining to the May 11 meet with officials of Enron, GE, Bechtel and DPC's foreign lenders", state government sources told PTI here. The meeting which lasted for almost four hours discussed a strategy to present the committee's recommendations made public last month, they said. Out of the nine-member committee, Saturday's meeting was attended by five members including Godbole, MSEB chairman Vinay Bansal, state energy secretary V M Lal, state finance secretary Sudhir Shrivastava and Kirit Parekh of Indira Gandhi Institute of Developmental Research. Those absent were HDFC Chairman Deepak Parekh, TERI Director R K Pachauri, former Union Energy Secretary E A S Sarma and yet to be appointed representatives of the Centre and Central Electricity Authority. The negotiating committee would suggest solutions to bring down the exorbitant power tariff, separating of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility, restructuring of DPC and allowing sale of excess power through central utilities mainly the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), sources said. (THROUGH ASIA PULSE) 05-05 2001 Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Energy Executives Make Millions Selling to Deregulated Market in California Chris Knap 05/05/2001 KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: The Orange County Register - California Copyright (C) 2001 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World Reporter (TM) Executives at the largest energy companies selling power into California saw their compensation rise an average of 253 percent last year, with one top executive collecting more than $100 million. Call it a classic case of supply and demand: Where a commodity is scarce, money follows. Nowhere was this more evident than inside California's dysfunctional electricity market. Corporate profits for energy traders and marketers nearly tripled due in large part to the California electricity crisis, and chief executives were rewarded with compensation packages that rose as much as 600 percent, according to disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Energy companies say the pay packages were well-deserved and reflect the returns enjoyed by shareholders. But consumers and ratepayer groups argue that the million-dollar salaries handed executives in Houston, Arlington and Atlanta are excessive especially in the wake of charges that companies manipulated California's power markets. No energy executive made more last year than Kenneth L. Lay, chairman of Houston-based Enron Corp. Lay collected $141.6 million in salary, bonuses and stock, a 184 percent increase over 1999. Enron, the nation's largest wholesale energy marketer, sells both natural gas and electricity in California. Enron also paid CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling $72.6 million and Enron Wholesale chief Mark A. Frevert $35.8 million. "If you could spray dye on dollars and trace them through, you would see pipelines out of Houston carrying energy and pipelines coming back carrying dollars," said Graef Crystal, a former executive pay consultant to Fortune 500 companies who now writes and lectures on executive compensation. "It's an involuntary transfer of wealth from the California consumers to Ken Lay and his cohorts. There's nothing illegal about it. But it doesn't make the people of California feel very good." An Orange County Register review of recently filed SEC documents also found: Peter Cartwright, chief executive of power generator Calpine Corp., of San Jose, earned $23.9 million, up from $3.3 million in 1999. Dennis Bakke, chief executive of Virginia-based AES Corp., which owns plants in Huntington Beach and Long Beach, earned $12.8 million, up from $1.98 million. Keith E. Bailey, chief executive of electricity marketer Williams Cos., of Tulsa, earned $7.05 million, up from $1.58 million. Lay and Skilling declined through a spokesman to be interviewed, as did executives at AES and Williams. But Enron spokeswoman Karen Denne said their pay reflects their performance in 2000 and previous years. "To be honest I don't know what the point is in looking at power executives' compensation," Denne said. "Companies like Enron have been working to put solutions on the table, to help California with its energy problems." Free-market advocates defend the energy salaries. "It's pure malarkey that that's too much. That's what incentive pay is for," said William M. Cockrum, a finance professor at the UCLA Anderson School. "From the shareholders point of view, they want the stock to go up. That's why they invested." Not everyone agrees. "Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous," said Everett Bassin, 71, a retired aerospace worker from Buena Park. "Does (Lay) really need $140 million to live for a year?" asked Bob Dodson, 68, of Yorba Linda, who lives with his wife on a Social Security income of $1,100 a month. Dodson said his electricity bill rose by $30 a month this winter and his gas bill by $100. "These guys are plain, unadulterated, greedy jerks," Dodson said. Regulators too have raised questions about the energy company profits. A California Independent System Operator study said "market power" exercised by Enron and other suppliers resulted in unfair profits that contributed $6.87 billion to the cost of wholesale power last year. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has ordered Enron, Williams and other top suppliers to prove their prices were "just and reasonable" or refund more than $100 million. Market power is seen when firms that control a substantial supply of a commodity withhold it or use other tactics to drive up the price. Enron and the other companies named in the study have denied such tactics. But Williams Cos. agreed Tuesday to repay $8 million to settle federal charges that it shut down two generating units so it could charge higher market prices at other power plants. Williams denies any wrongdoing. In total, California paid $28 billion for electricity last year, four times the 1999 costs. Earnings statements show profits at many energy wholesalers tripled in 2000. Experts say the pay handed to these energy executives last year is higher than most other major corporations are paying. But most other corporations didn't see profits triple last year. For instance, Ford CEO Jac Nasser, whose company owns the Irvine-based Lincoln and Jaguar brands, collected $12.4 million last year, up 13 percent. But Ford's 2000 earnings declined by half in 2000. Boeing CEO Phil Condit, whose Space Division is headquartered in Seal Beach, collected $20 million, up 342 percent. Boeing's 2000 earnings were down 8.5 percent. "From what I can see they are paying themselves very well, although I wouldn't say it's excessive," Crystal said of the energy companies. But Crystal made an exception for Lay, whom he classed with a group of executives, including Disney's Michael Eisner and Citigroup's Sanford Weill, who have earned $100 million a year, even if their companies have performed poorly. Last year Eisner was paid $73 million by Disney, up 44 percent, although earnings fell 30 percent. Citigroup, the New York financial conglomerate, paid Weill $223 million, up 142 percent. The company's earnings rose 20 percent. Enron's earnings were not particularly strong last year. Profits were up only 10 percent. The company attributed that to a series of write-offs, including a $300 million loss at an Argentine water company. Excluding those one-time charges, profits were up 32 percent, Enron said, and its stock nearly doubled in value. Most of the energy companies examined by The Register did better, reporting profits, on average, up 187 percent. Now look at the numbers reported by California's two largest utilities, who are trapped between the high costs of wholesale energy and a Public Utilities Commission cap on charges to ratepayers: Edison International, parent of Southern California Edison, reported a loss of $1.9 billion. Edison cut pay for CEO John Bryson nearly 50 percent, to $1.62 million. PG&E, the Northern California utility, reported a loss of $3.4 billion last year and more than halved the pay of CEO Robert D. Glynn Jr., to $944,000. "A lot of money's been made by these (energy traders), but I wouldn't want to suggest that there is something inherently bad about doing that,"said Ted Craver, Edison's chief financial officer. "They have a role to play. If the companies do well, and their executive compensation is based on stock options, it stands to reason the executives will do well." The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is investigating allegations of overcharging, and last week put price caps in place for California power generators. But experts say that will have little effect on the profits of firms like Williams and Enron, whose primary role is as traders. "I think profits will continue to grow for the next year or two, as long as markets are volatile. That's when traders do well," said Brian Youngberg, a senior utility analyst for Edward Jones. "It certainly looks like 2001 will be another record year for energy company prices," agreed Paul Fremont, who follows energy stocks for Jeffries & Company. Free market supporters like UCLA's Cockrum and Enron's Lay say it would be wrong to blame either energy companies or deregulation for California's high energy prices. "What has happened in California over the past four years is not deregulation. It is misguided regulation," Lay wrote in an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle in March. "If done right, deregulation means choice and competition. Deregulation means lower prices. Deregulation means innovation. California has the opportunity now to get it right." Those comments infuriated consumer advocates. "It's just devastating," said Doug Heller, of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "It highlights the absurdity of deregulation in terms of the balance of power between the consumer and the corporation. It's one thing to be successful in America. It's another thing to pillage the consumers in California, and then have the gall to come back and tell us we need to let them in for more." 10 WHO MADE MILLIONS DURING CALIFORNIA'S DEREGULATION: Pay for top executives at many independent power companies increased last year. Here's a list of the top-paid energy executives with business interests in California. ENRON: Kenneth L. Lay, 58, Chairman, Enron Corp., Houston, TX 2000 compensation: $141.6 million, up 184 percent. Jeffrey K. Skilling, 46, CEO, Enron Corp. 2000 compensation $72.6 million, up 44 percent. Mark A. Frevert, CEO Enron Wholesale 2000 compensation: $35.8 million, up 289 percent. CALIFORNIA CONNECTION: Enron sold natural gas and electric power in California last year. According to a study by the California Independent System Operator, Enron earned excess profits of $28 million by exercising market power. EL PASO ENERGY GROUP: William A. Wise, chairman, and CEO, El Paso Energy Group, Houston, TX 2000 compensation: $18 million, down 62 percent CALIFORNIA CONNECTIONS: El Paso has the largest gas transmission pipeline serving Southern California, and was accused during a state Senate hearing April 19 of exercising monopoly power last year that drove Southern California gas prices 12 times higher than prices in Texas. CALPINE: Peter Cartwright, 71, CEO, president and chairman, Calpine Corp., San Jose, CA. 2000 Compensation: $23.9 million, up 624 percent. Ann B. Curtis, 50, CFO and executive vice president, Calpine Corp. 2000 Compensation: $6.85 million, up 247 percent. Robert D. Kelly, 43, President, Calpine Finance Co. 2000 compensation: $7.12 million, up 118 percent. CALIFORNIA CONNECTION: Calpine owns 2 percent of California's generation capacity, including PG&E's former geothermal plants in Sonoma and Lake counties, and is lobbying to build a new plant in San Jose. AES: Dennis W. Bakke, 55, CEO and President, AES Corp., Arlington, VA 2000 compensation: $12.8 million, up 546 percent. Barry J. Sharp, 41, CFO and executive vice president, AES Corp. 2000 compensation: $8.13 million, up 670 percent. CALIFORNIA CONNECTIONS: AES owns plants in Huntington Beach and Long Beach and currently controls 7 percent of the state's generation capacity. AES paid a record $17 million fine last year for overpolluting from its coastal plants. WILLIAMS COS: Keith E. Bailey, 58, chairman, president and CEO, The Williams Cos. Inc., Tulsa OK 2000 compensation: $7.05 million, up 346 percent. CALIFORNIA CONNECTIONS: Williams piped natural gas to California and then converted it into electric power through long-term contracts with AES. The FERC has ordered Williams to justify or refund $37.6 million in alleged overcharges in 2000 and 2001. Williams has agreed to refund $8 million. SOURCES: SEC filings, Register interviews, California Independent System Operator, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders. Compensation includes salary, bonuses, stock and value of shares acquired on exercise. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|