|
|
Enron Mail |
I think so. To top things off, there building downtown flooded and the tr=
aders are working out of there house. They have no idea what there positi= ons are, and they are trading almost exclusively on EOL from their home com= puters. =20 What a joke, huh. -----Original Message----- From: Llodra, John=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 7:53 PM To: Presto, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Status on Calpine Dighton thanks for the reply kevin. i've been thinking about shorting calpine stoc= k for some time. maybe now is a good time! -----Original Message-----=20 From: Presto, Kevin M.=20 Sent: Tue 6/12/2001 6:56 PM=20 To: Llodra, John=20 Cc:=20 Subject: RE: Status on Calpine Dighton Calpine is in complete disarray right now, and the entire future of their c= ompany hinges on CA honoring their long term above market contracts. Calp= ine's non-CA portfolio is getting killed and I don't think they have hedged= effectively in the non-CA locations. =20 Given these circumstances, the word "below market" is an "f" word, particul= ary with the legal concerns they also have. I would place a low probabili= ty on getting to a value proposition that makes sense for both parties at D= ighton, particularly with the legal issues. -----Original Message----- From: Llodra, John=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 5:25 PM To: Presto, Kevin M.; Duran, W. David Subject: Status on Calpine Dighton I wanted to give you a quick update on this. After reviewing the various a= ngles on this with structuring, it was evident that the best real prospect = for doing something with them was for us to receive a below mkt position fr= om Calpine off of Dighton (so as to force Coenergy (gas supplier) to make a= s large a termination pmt to Calpine as possible). In return, we would pro= vide some other form of value (e.g., low cost capital to facilitate re-fina= ncing of Dighton once gas agreement terminated, we sell them a below mkt po= sition in another region, etc.). I floated this proposal verbally to Paul= Barnett about a 1-1.5 weeks ago, and his reaction was sort of "that sounds= interesting" but he didn't show a great deal of genuine interest. I indic= ated to him that I would work up a more specific written proposal. Howeve= r, after discussing with our legal dept, they had some real angst of me mak= ing a formal written proposal to them in this regard (concerns centering ar= ound tortious interference, etc.). Based on that, I called Barnett back sa= ying I was unable to make a formal written proposal along the lines of my v= erbal proposal to him, but that we would still be interested and indicated = that the ball is in his court if he wants to pursue that angle. As yet I h= ave not heard back from him, and i do not hold a lot of hope that they want= to pursue this. Kevin - please let me know if you think trying to chase = this more makes sense based on your discussions with Paul P. a few weeks ba= ck. =20 John
|