|
|
Enron Mail |
Luiz. Thank you for your note. We are still in the boxing ring!. The first
round was won but we still have some more rounds to go. Next week is the consent, provably in two weeks we will discuss the regulatory obstacles.. Jose ---------------------- Forwarded by Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 07/07/2001 05:54 PM --------------------------- Jose Bestard 07/07/2001 03:41 PM To: Cuiaba LT cc: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Cuiaba Issues - July 6 situation- Topic I -- Amendment 4 We spent the morning perfecting Aditivo 4 with Furnas, to cover the situation where the commissioning plan did not go as scheduled. It was signed early afternoon and sent to Eletrobras. The Eletrobras Diretoria had not followed this issue closely and need legal clearance. Furnas and the Ministry (Perazzo) called to give it priority. Late at night we received word that the "parecer" (opinion) was ready and that it the Anex would signed by Eletrobras next Monday and entered into their Board meeting next Tuesday. Petrobras sent us the letter we asked but took out of their version a key word "only". "Only" refers that they will not go after us for non-payment if Furnas does not pay. In the letter they also stated that they will commence the loading operation -- at their own risk - Saturday. This was requested by Perazzo to save logistical time because it takes three days to get to Cuiaba from the refinery. [Advised Laine of the situation to check Monday how many trucks were loaded and in transit] We contacted Perazzo through Sergio Assad to get his word that there would not be a last minute hitch; otherwise, we may have to refuse to take the diesel and would create a BIG PR problem for all. Topic III - Consent Package (Opinions, Aditivo, Consent) Furnas came in with the list of issues they wanted to discuss. I instead insisted that we treat this meeting as a continuation of the MME meeting and follow the Agenda by looking at the Consent document package -- actually go over the text - that they find objectionable, and, if it the text had a direct link with any of their issues, we would discuss and examine the relative positions. What they told me is what they have told me before, that some of the issues have nothing to do with the Consent but they want it as a condition to agree to the package. Which is fine to me, because it will make it clear to the government what we have been saying --- they want to change the deal. In Furnas' defense, I need to add that they feel they have been handed a bad contract and they want regulatory relief, which it has been granted, on a case-by-case basis, in other deals. So part of their strategy is to force MME, or Aneel to provide some tariff relief. I asked them to list out the key issues with the Consent- Old-- a) the 90 days additional time (Furnas), b) The guarantee substitution at the time of privatization, c) the lenders involvement on contract changes "we do not want to go to Washington to negotiate" - Newer - d) giving up their right to ask Aneel to "homologar", ratify; rather than "registrar" contract changes [big risk for us] . I believe the have more direct issues. We go back to Rio Monday (another holiday down the drain) ..and Tuesday to complete the list -- Topic II -- Regulatory conflicts Jose
|