|
|
Enron Mail |
Sandi - I misspoke - this note was sent only to Dan, not to you. George
---------------------- Forwarded by George Weissman/HOU/ECT on 05/17/2001 10:49 AM --------------------------- Enron North America Corp. From: George Weissman 04/16/2001 03:37 PM To: David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melissa Graves/HOU/ECT, Brian M Riley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jim Coffey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bob M Hall/NA/Enron@Enron, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: ENA Texas Contracts David, You asked us to determine if, after the sale to AEP, ENA has enough contract coverage for its then-former HPL customers. We have reviewed all contracts in either the HOUGAS or HPL Maintenance Groups of our Global Contracts Database, and as of 4/12/2001, we have determined the following: 1. There are a total of 7,434 active contracts in the two Groups, 5,680 in the HOUGAS Group and 1,754 in the HPL Group. 2. With some minor, inconsequential exceptions, the Enron counterparty for all contracts in the HOUSGAS Group is Enron North America Corp. and the Enron counterparty for all contracts in the HPL Group is either the Houston Pipe Line Company or HPL Resources Company. 3. Of the 7,434 active contracts, a total of 2,056 contracts are Master Agreements - that is, they are generic in nature and can therefore capture deals at any point on the grid. My category of Master Agreements includes, among others, the following: all GISB contracts and all Master Purchase and/or Sale contracts (both spot and firm). My category of Master Agreements does NOT include the following: Committed Reserves contracts, GTCs (General Terms and Conditions contracts, both spot and firm) or Single Transaction contracts - these contracts are always point specific. 4. Of the 2,056 Master Agreements, 1,888 are in the HOUGAS Group (Enron North America Corp.) and 168 are in the HPL Group (Houston Pipe Line Company or HPL Resources Company. 5. We have reviewed each of the 168 HPL Group Master Agreements and assigned one of four designators to each agreement as follows: a. "going/need?" indicates the HPL contract is going to AEP - does ENA need a replacement for business after 6/1/2001 b. "going/staying" indicates the HPL contract is going to AEP but an identical contract already exists for ENA c. "going" indicates the HPL contract is going to AEP but a similar contract already exists for ENA d. "staying" corresponds to "going" on the ENA side - it's the similar contract that already exists for ENA The "going"/"staying" designation can best be described by citing a specific example. On the attachment, Boyd Rosene and Associates, Inc. is listed on lines 24 and 25. The Master Purchase Sale Spot contract with HPL is going to AEP, but the GISB Base Contract is staying with ENA. Technically, the contracts are somewhat different, but in general, the parties can conduct the same business under a Master Purchase Sale Spot contract as under a GISB Base Contract. Thus, I would suggest that ENA needs to take no further action with respect to contracting with Boyd Rosene and Associates, Inc. as a result of the Master Purchase Sale Spot contract moving to AEP. The attachment sets forth, in alphabetical order by counterparty, the counterparties associated with the 168 HPL Master Contracts and the corresponding ENA Master Contracts with those parties, if any. The list is very counterparty specific. For example, Exxon Mobil Corporation is not the same party as ExxonMobil Gas Marketing Company. In all, we have identified a total of 116 HPL Master Contracts that may need to be replaced by ENA, those designated "going/need?" This analysis does not cover those ENA contracts that will be going to AEP thru Lodisco, such as Reliant Energy - Entex. George x3-6992 ---------------------- Forwarded by George Weissman/HOU/ECT on 04/16/2001 11:35 AM --------------------------- Enron North America Corp. From: George Weissman 04/11/2001 07:11 AM To: Jim Coffey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Melissa Graves/HOU/ECT, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: ENA Texas Contracts David wants to determine if, after the sale to AEP, ENA has enough contract coverage for its then-former HPL customers. We're going to provide, by tomorrow, a list of all the customers with Master or GISB contracts with ENA and HPL and then review same to see where the holes may be. For example, if HPL has a GISB with, say Amoco, but none in place with ENA, then ENA could determine if they want to put one in place for future business. George x3-6992 To: George Weissman/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Melissa Graves/Enron@EnronXGate, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: ENA Texas Contracts What is this all about? Enron North America Corp. From: George Weissman 04/10/2001 08:19 AM To: Melissa Graves/HOU/ECT cc: Jim Coffey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: ENA Texas Contracts fyi ---------------------- Forwarded by George Weissman/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001 08:05 AM --------------------------- Linda S Bryan 04/10/2001 08:04 AM To: David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert L Hall/ET&S/Enron@Enron, George Weissman/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: ENA Texas Contracts I have scheduled a meeting to discuss David Baumbach's request to determine what HPL customers do not have ENA contracts and as to whether we need to negotitate contracts. Date: April 10, 2001 Place: EB 3758 Time: 1:30pm
|