Re: Cargo/Storage Claim - Styrene at Baytank

---------------------- Forwarded by Kristi I Louthan/HOU/ECT on 08/11/2000
03:13 PM ---------------------------

From: Lisa Walker 07/18/2000 03:02 PM

To: Kristi I Louthan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Cargo/Storage Claim - Styrene at Baytank

---------------------- Forwarded by Lisa Walker/HOU/ECT on 07/18/2000 03:01
PM ---------------------------

Stuart Bland
07/18/2000 05:26 AM
To: Steven M Elliott/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Lisa Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Graham Cane/LON/ECT@ECT, John H
Harrison/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Cargo/Storage Claim - Styrene at Baytank

Steve this is a classic example why we have to push and push for progress
and results.
There is no explicable reason why it can have taken this company so long to
come up with this conclusion/report.
The discrepancies are very large and not having seen our claim I cannot judge.
The only way you are going to make progress is to get a meeting organised
immediately and as Ted says go over it point by point. A $900,000 claim
reduced to $ 150,000 is a serious issue .
From what I can gather from Ted Rosen's note is that Baytank appear to admit
to some form of liability/responsibility on the off spec which I suppose is
some progress.
I'm copying Graham on this now because he has plenty of experience in Europe
with these claims .
This must be sorted out and treated as high priority.
Call me to discuss
Thanks

Stuart

Steven M Elliott
17/07/2000 22:28
To: "Ted Rosen" <trosen@jwortham.com< @ ENRON
cc: Lisa Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stuart Bland/lon/ect

Subject: Re: Cargo/Storage Claim - Styrene at Baytank

I guess that we all expected such a reply from the Insurance company.
Apparently we need to have a meeting to discuss the letter that I just
received because I am very curious where all these numbers and information
have come from.

1) What does a contract with Enron and Philchem have to do with a cargo
claim? The product in the tank was owned by Enron and only Enron.

2) On November 5th we discovered that the product was off-spec. The
beginning inventory that day was approx. 6.6mm pounds. Where does 2mm pounds
come from?

3) Baytank would not admit to a problem with the tank in which Enron is bound
by contract. Enron, under contract, is still obligated to pay costs
assoiated with the tank. In order for the tank to be used, it must be
cleaned since it is considered off-spec. Enron had nothing to do with the
tank going off-spec and should be compensated for any and all out of costs
and expenses incurred while the tank was considered off-spec.

4) The tank agreement stipulates that a minimum of 3,104 mtons will be paid
every month for thru-put no matter how much volume goes thru the tank.
Again, Enron is bound by a contract and is still responsible for these costs
until Baytank is proven at fault.

Steve Elliott