|
|
Enron Mail |
I agree with you that par. 4 doesn't give NMNG anything beyond what the
tariff and general contract law gave them. The "subject to agreement by Transwestern" language is redundant since the previous clause says " by mutual written agreement." Additionally, its confusing and innacurate because the "provided, however, that" clause isn't even binding if we mutually agree to eliminate it. I therefore think we ought to take par. 4 out, or at least remove the "provided however" clause. I don't agree that we can only decrease their MDQ by using capacity release. We can mutually agree to terminate their contract or reduce their MDQ without using cap. release. I suppose we would need to use cap. release if the termination or reduction of their MDQ was a sham designed to get the capacity from NMNG to another shipper, however. I would propose one change to Par. 3 just to make the discount more clear. The par. talks about primary delivery points but is silent on primary receipts. I'd add this, after the words "Appendix A" at the end of the current first sentence: "and receipts at the primary points of receipt set forth on Appendix A. The discounted rate shall also apply to receipts at alternate receipt points in Transwestern's East of Thoreau (EOT) area." I'm a fan of being extremely clear when we limit availability of discounts, and think we should always fully explain what the discount applies to at both the receipt and delivery end of the deal. Susan, please work with Christine to get these changes made. I'd like to eliminate par. 4 entirely, but I can live with it if the business people want to leave it in, as long as we eliminate the "provided however" clause. With these changes, I'm OK with the contract. Thanks. From: Susan Scott 01/24/2000 03:29 PM To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Transwestern Contract Approval Request The only problem I can see with this is that paragraph 4 could be construed to encourage NMNG to request amendment not only to increase the MAXDTQ but also to decrease it (if the MAXDTQ has been increased by a previous amendment). I worry that this might mislead NMNG that the parties can decrease the MAXDTQ by agreement rather than NMNG using capacity release procedures. However, the paragraph does not obligate TW to do anything & doesn't give NMNG any rights, since any change in the MAXDTQ must be by mutual agreement (and it's subject to available capacity). Since it does not seem to give either party anything they do not already get under the tariff, I think I would recommend we omit it. However, NMNG might insist on this or similar language to reflect the "deal" --- or at least the conversations of the parties. If that's the case, I suppose I would advise the marketing folks to limit the language of paragraph 4 to an increase in MAXDTQ and explain that any decrease would have to be thru capacity release. Comments? ---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 01/24/2000 03:10 PM --------------------------- Christine Stokes 01/24/2000 11:15 AM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Christine Stokes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bill Cordes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Audrey Robertson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Transwestern Contract Approval Request TRANSWESTERN CONTRACT APPROVAL REQUEST Please review the attached discount letter for New Mexico Natural Gas, Inc. (NMNG). The contract's five year term provides for EOT-EOT receipts and deliveries at a $.05/Dth/day transportation rate. The contract's MAXDQ varies by month and is show on the Appendix A of the discount letter. Please indicate your approval via REPLY WITH HISTORY. Officer approvals will be faxed to Bill Cordes for final Officer approval. ]
|