|
|
Enron Mail |
we could definitely point them to consol. mark, i need to know more about =
the players here. while i have recently become more aware of who the big pr= oducers are, that is really the extent of my knowledge. if you have a litt= le free time tomorrow afternoon, perhaps we could touch base briefly. than= ks. lara -----Original Message----- From: =09Schroeder, Mark =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:35 PM To:=09Yoho, Lisa Cc:=09Pack Jr., Scott; Leibman, Lara Subject:=09RE: restrictive contract clauses We could probably tell them where to look, but, obviously, we do not have t= he contracts, since they are not with us as the counterparty. Scott is out= tomorrow. I could meet with you, but not sure I have much to add. Added = problem is that, if we say, go look at Party X's contract with Consol, havi= ng just talked with Party X ourselves, it may become too obvious, i.e., our= fingerprints are seen in this. Can't we just alert them to Consol's misbe= haviour, and let them run with it, e.g, DOJ contacts Consol, either asking = for contracts, or names of customers, with customers providing their contra= cts to DOJ? thanks Mark -----Original Message----- From: =09Yoho, Lisa =20 Sent:=0918 October 2001 16:15 To:=09Schroeder, Mark Cc:=09Leibman, Lara Subject:=09FW: restrictive contract clauses Mark: When can you meet with us on this issue? Lisa -----Original Message----- From: =09Leibman, Lara =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:13 PM To:=09Yoho, Lisa Cc:=09Shapiro, Richard Subject:=09RE: restrictive contract clauses sure. no problem. we've already given the doj "heads-up" on these types of= provisions. however, if we'd like to provide them with specific language = (crossing out any reference to certain players, if necessary), that might b= e a good idea. since i'm going up there (should be confirmed by tomorrow) = next tuesday to see them, this is timely. =20 lara -----Original Message----- From: =09Yoho, Lisa =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:57 PM To:=09Leibman, Lara Cc:=09Shapiro, Richard Subject:=09FW: restrictive contract clauses Sound familiar? Let's sit down with Mark on this when you have time. Tha= nks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: =09Schroeder, Mark =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:50 PM To:=09Yoho, Lisa Cc:=09Pack Jr., Scott Subject:=09restrictive contract clauses Lisa - as you probably know, the Pitt seam is characterised by a few domina= nt players, most notably Consol and RAG. Consol, especially, is resistant = to our business model (transparency, liquidity). We have heard that they a= re putting clauses into contracts that prohibit the resale of their coal, b= y their utility customers. I used to know more about this area of the law,= but isn't this impermissible? If so, (but don't do this, yet), is it poss= ible to give DOJ a "heads up", so they could send appropriate demands for i= nformation? We definitely would not want our fingerprints on this. Policy= makers should be on our side, as a matter of energy policy, because in time= s like these, when coal supplies are still tight, you want free movement of= the commodity to where it is needed, when it is needed, rather than creati= ng artificial shortages because someone long Pitt seam coal cannot re-sell = it. Also, such restrictions are likely to inhibit development of effective= risk management mechanisms, like the Northerern App. contract that Alleghe= ny has been talking about (and which I understand we might put on EOL, if/w= hen the contract is developed). Your thoughts? thanks mcs
|