|
|
Enron Mail |
Miguel,
=20 Contractually: On the positive side, Section 7.3.1.1 says that "EcoElectric= a and Terminal Operator shall use reasonable efforts to integrate Terminal = Operator's then committed LPG purchases and supply arrangements into EcoEle= ctrica's overall LPG purchase and supply program". However, Eco's borrowing= rights under Section 7.3.2.4 could give ProCaribe its biggest problem. Eco= can drawdown ProCaribe's inventories to 3250 MT as long as there is a vess= el loading or en route with at least 8,000 MT of LPG for EcoElectrica. If t= he cargo takes 14 days to arrive, ProCaribe's needs would be 6,300 MT durin= g those 14 days. We need to have a provision in our deal with PDVSA that gi= ves ProCaribe the option to receive 4,000 - 5,000 MT on short notice if Eco= declares a Second Period Supply Disruption. =20 Mechanically: I cannot think of any reasons why ProCaribe would be unable t= o supply both EcoElectrica and all of Puerto Rico's LPG distributors. The d= ifference between what we are hoping for under the PDVSA agreement and what= ProCaribe was doing last year is the loading of an additional 175,000 gall= ons (335 MT) per day into trucks. That would be an additional 16 trucks per= day. If EcoElectrica was at 100% output, they would be consuming 1900 MT p= er day and the rest of the island would be using 450 MT per day. As long as= your heaters can warm-up a total of 2500 MT per day, you should be in the = clear. =20 Inventory Requirements: EcoElectrica, today, is at risk if there is an exte= nded disruption in its LNG supply. That risk will be there, regardless of w= hether or not ProCaribe does the PDVSA deal. Eco must keep a minimum supply= of 15 days of fuel on site. Typically, an LNG ship arrives when there is 6= days of LNG in the tank. That means that Eco must have 9 days of LPG and/o= r diesel. As of August 31st, Eco had 5 days of LPG (9250 MT) and 4 days of = diesel (2,800,000 gallons) on-site. If Eco were suddenly faced with a disru= ption in LNG supply, Eco would call PDVSA for LPG and both Coastal and Amer= ada Hess for diesel. Depending on availability, purchases would be made fro= m those 3 suppliers to relieve the crisis. In the past, it has been much ea= sier to arrange a short-notice diesel purchase than an LPG purchase. If nec= essary, a larger LPG purchase could be arranged from Africa or the North Se= a. Expect an advance notice of at least 35 days. Again, Eco has this risk e= ven under today's operations. =20 Logistics: I do not see the PDVSA deal as a negative factor from the logist= ics point of view. PDVSA asks for fewer days of advance notice and seems to= be more flexible. If Eco were in a position of having to bring in large ca= rgoes of LPG from across the Atlantic, the PDVSA deal may actually make the= logistics easier if PDVSA would be flexible in their deliveries. =20 Paul =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Mahan, Mariella=20 Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:22 PM To: Maltes, Miguel; Y'Barbo, Paul Subject: Technical limitations with Eco LPG Are there ANY technical limitations imposed by a potential sudden need to u= se LPG at Eco that would get in the way of performance under the proposed P= DVSA agreement? What are the conditions that Eco would have to face for Pr= ocaribe to experience storage or receiving constraints resulting from havin= g to meet both Eco's and PDVSA's needs? Thanks
|