|
|
Enron Mail |
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
|