Enron Mail

From:kevin.heal@enron.com
To:peggy.hedstrom@enron.com, m.hall@enron.com, robert.superty@enron.com
Subject:Force Majeure Protocol
Cc:martin.cuilla@enron.com, jonathan.mckay@enron.com, greg.johnston@enron.com,lisa.kinsey@enron.com, andrea.langfeldt@enron.com
Bcc:martin.cuilla@enron.com, jonathan.mckay@enron.com, greg.johnston@enron.com,lisa.kinsey@enron.com, andrea.langfeldt@enron.com
Date:Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:28:24 -0700 (PDT)

An event of Force Majeure occurred on Northern Border (NBPL) on July 13 at =
Station 8 resulting in curtailment of deliveries through Ventura from July1=
3-18. As a result, ENA was not able to take full delivery of firm volumes =
from EC at the Monchy upstream interconnect.

EC and ENA hold divergent views on how to implement the curtailment. We ne=
ed to reach a common understanding.

The view of EC is that a force majeure event, as defined by Article 5 of ou=
r master agreement with ENA (see Attachment) or superceded by amendments co=
ntained in individual confirmation letters, implies that all firm transacti=
ons must be curtailed "by the same percentage that the applicable transport=
er interrupts or curtails firm delivery service..." (language in parenthese=
s was directly lifted from a Monchy confirmation letter dated November 1, 1=
997 signed by Julie Gomez). =20

The view of ENA, as articulated by Martin and Lisa, is that Northern Border=
sends scheduled volumes back to Unify via EDI with a service agreeement pa=
thed to a firm supply deal. The pipeline scheduled volume for the path dri=
ves how much each individual deal is curtailed even if some supply deals =
are cut by a different percentage than others. My apologies if I have not e=
xpressed this properly.

In other words, we agree on the magnitude of the curtailment but not how to=
allocate cuts to individual deals.

Because we have desk to desk deals (since earlier this year), ENA and EC mu=
st agree on scheduled volumes. In the past our deals were Physical Forward=
and if our volumes did not agree it was not discovered until invoicing, at=
which time the accountants would duke it out. Now, Logistics quite proper=
ly has to deal with it within the month. This has implications at all poin=
ts where ENA transacts with EC such as Kingsgate, Empress, Eastern Canada.

EC has reluctantly agreed to accept ENA's non-proportional scheduled volum=
es for this event so that the schedulers can move on but I would appreciate=
a policy resolution to this issue prior to the next downstream curtailment=
.

Kevin Heal
Enron Canada Corp.
403 974-6727

Attachment

Legal Opinion dated July 20, 2001

Kevin, further to your voice-mail, as indicated to you yesterday, our physi=
cal gas master agreement with ENA is in their form of Enfolio master agreem=
ent and not our form of master. What that means is that, although the mech=
anics of declaring force majeure, etc. are the same, the definition of forc=
e majeure under our Enfolio master with ENA is not restricted to delivery p=
oint force majeure as it is in ECC's standard form, but is rather a broader=
based force majeure. However, it must be kept in mind that, depending on =
the transaction, the definition of "force majeure" may be amended in the te=
rms of the particular confirmation letter. The application section (which =
is basically the same as in our form) is as follows:

This Article 5 is the sole and exclusive excuse of performance permitted un=
der this Agreement, and all other excuses at law or in equity are waived to=
the extent permitted by law. Except with regard to payment obligations, i=
n the event either Party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, by Force Ma=
jeure to carry out its obligations hereunder, it is agreed that upon such P=
arty's giving notice and full particulars of such Force Majeure to the othe=
r Party as soon as reasonably possible (such notice to be confirmed in writ=
ing), the obligations of the Party giving such notice, to the extent that t=
hey are affected by such event, shall be suspended from the inception and d=
uring the continuance of the Force Majeure for a period of up to 60 Days in=
the aggregate during any 12 Month period, but for no longer period. The P=
arty receiving notice of Force Majeure may immediately take such action as =
it deems necessary at its expense for the entire 60 Day period or any part =
thereof. The Parties expressly agree that upon the expiration of the 60 Da=
y period Force Majeure shall no longer apply to the obligations hereunder a=
nd both Buyer and Seller shall be obligated to perform...

I will send a copy of the agreement over to you which also contains the def=
inition of Force Majeure, but again it must be remembered that such definit=
ion may be amended in the particular confirm.

Greg Johnston
Senior Counsel
Enron Canada Corp.
phone: 403-974-6745
greg.johnston@enron.com