Enron Mail

From:john.rigby@enron.com
To:ben.jacoby@enron.com
Subject:Siemens - Westinghouse 31 Jan AM Update.
Cc:fred.kelly@enron.com, scott.laidlaw@enron.com, ron.tapscott@enron.com,kay.mann@enron.com, peter.nassab@enron.com, james.studdert@enron.com
Bcc:fred.kelly@enron.com, scott.laidlaw@enron.com, ron.tapscott@enron.com,kay.mann@enron.com, peter.nassab@enron.com, james.studdert@enron.com
Date:Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:13:00 -0800 (PST)

1. Met with Ron Tapscott, Jim Studdert and Scott Laidlaw, primary subject
insurance claim status. Scott Laidlaw gave Jim a letter from Siemens in
which Siemens says the generator is a total loss (or cost to repair is
greater than a new one). Jim will use this to give to the adjustor to get
the survey and adjusting process going again. Jim needs a point of contact
at Westinghouse to get access to the generator and get it unboxed for the
adjustor to look at. The generator that is shown in the report is the 2nd
generator in the hold and is not ours. Apparently our generator has not been
unboxed and thus not directly observed. Rumor has it that the water line is
not as high on the Enron box as it was on the box of the generator that is
not Enron's.

In my conversation with Mark T this morning I asked him for the name and
telephone number of the Westinghouse point of contact for the adjustor so
that the adjustor can arrange to see the generator. He stated he would have
SW PM provide us that point of contact. I will sent Mark an Email reminding
him of such.

At the risk of making anyone or everyone nervous- but I think it is important
for everyone to understand, I believe getting the pay-out value from the
insurance adjustor is a vital element of the Calpine- SW deal. If the
adjustor comes back with something less than the replacement value (other
than the deductible) because he asserts that the generator was not (as a
result of the water- but is now because it sat in a box unattended) a total
loss, or presently is not viewed as a total loss then SW will go to full
battle stations asserting the loss occurred when Enron had risk of loss and
damage.

2. Mark T and I talked status. Mark T asked if we thought that Calpine
would buy the Unit. Mark T indicated that he spoke with Mike Costa and per
Mike C SW is one to two days away from reaching a deal with Calpine on the
Nov Unit. I queried Mark on whether SW has other customers for the Nov
Unit. He was properly evasive, indicated that SW did not, but said
opportunities always come along. Mark T indicated he questioned whether the
April delivery would work for Calpine- he agreed that an April delivery of
the generator would get them on line in time, but as he saw it he wondered if
Calpine had an engineer in line to build the plant. In the midst of the
conversation he wondered whether NEPCO would even have the capacity to get it
on line given other work. I am not sure whether that was a deliberate
query to see if we were interested in having NEPCO build the plant.

Ben Summary of conversation- if we Enron as sure we have a sale with
Calpine, then I think Mark was saying we can do the deal. I think the ball
is our court to flush out Calpine (am I spelling it correctly?)- within the
next 24 to 48 hours.

3. Update on expedited shipment by air. Cost would be in the order of
magniture of $275,000 +/- (versus $30- $50K by vessel) , problem- latest
information is that as configured it will not fit on an airplane. We had
people looking to see if anything can be taken off the generator to get it on
the airplane. I mentioned this to Mark T, he questioned airplane transport
in that he felt SW transportation people would have already suggested it.

4. Ron and James. I queried Mark T to determine whether SW had gone after
the shipper. I put it in the context that we did not want to inadvertently
upset what SW might be doing with the shipper. He did not know. I doubt we
will get any information on that front.