Message-ID: <19998888.1075858072294.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:48:00 -0800 (PST) From: mcontant@cypressasset.com To: martin.cuilla@enron.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Bernstein Natural Gas Summary (with the right attachment)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Michael D Contant X-To: Martin.Cuilla@enron.com X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Martin_Cuilla_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: Cuilla-M X-FileName: mcuilla.nsf From where do the alligations of price fixing stem? M Martin.Cuilla@enron.com wrote: > California is going after the owners of the generation facilities and > trying to hit them with a one time tax for making too much profits. We > don't have any generation but if the politicians don't get enough money > from them they might try to fuck with gas companies also. Quite frankly > they are stupid because no one is going to build new generation in > California or anywhere on the borders because of the political climate and > the consumers are going to get fucked because that is really what they need > - more generation. There are some really conviencing articles that it pin > point the electricity supply demand imbalance to be caused by computer > usage in Silicon Valley and throught California. By the way gas in > southern california is selling for $18 - $19 which is easily 4 to 5 times > higher than they have ever seen prices before this year. > > Michael D Contant on 11/30/2000 10:51:15 AM > > To: Martin.Cuilla@enron.com > cc: > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Bernstein Natural Gas Summary (with the right > attachment)] > > What happened with that California electric price fixing thing?? > > M > > Martin.Cuilla@enron.com wrote: > > > Below is the NYMEX futures curve for 2001. We are up almost $.40 in > > January and $.15 for the back Apr - Dec. This thing is just getting > > started! > > > > Jan 6.56 > > Feb 6.35 > > Mar 5.81 > > Apr - Oct 4.85 > > Nov 4.84 > > Dec 5.00 > > > > Michael D Contant on 11/30/2000 10:14:46 AM > > > > To: Martin Cuilla > > cc: > > Subject: [Fwd: Bernstein Natural Gas Summary (with the right > attachment)] > > > > Bernstein is working on it, he'll be back to me today. I think your > > theory is correct based on what little work I've done so far. > > > > M > > > > "Mahedy, John P." wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > I had asked my colleague duane grubert who will cover some of those > > > names to answer the question. I will track down the answer again and > > > forward it to you. I incorrectly assumed that he had done it > > > already. My apologies. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael D Contant [mailto:mcontant@cypressasset.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:27 PM > > > To: Mahedy, John P. > > > Subject: Re: Bernstein Natural Gas Summary (with the right attachment) > > > > > > Mr. Mahedy: > > > > > > Have you had a chance to look at my question of lat last week, I know > > > you've > > > probably been working on this very attachment?? Names (cap-agnostic) > > > with a > > > largely (70% or more) or completely unhedged natural gas position? > > > > > > Thanks again for your time, > > > Michael Contant > > > > > > "Mahedy, John P." wrote: > > > > > > > > Comments on New Data > > > > > * Based on the data for the week ended November 24, 2000, > > > inventories > > > > > for natural gas decreased by 146 bcf to 2502 bcf. This draw was > > > greater > > > > > than the forecast of 93 that we made last week based on the > > > outlook for > > > > > weather and a downward adjustment of 25 for lower holiday demand. > > > Based > > > > > on actual weather the expected draw would have been 128. > > > > > * Looking forward, based on current weather forecasts for the > > > week, we > > > > > expect a draw of 79 bcf. > > > > > * The inventory data is bullish, particularly in light of high > > > prices > > > > > relative to substitutes that should theoretically be having a > > > negative > > > > > impact on switchable demand. Also of note, the pattern of higher > > > than > > > > > expected inventory builds that were pointing toward a modest > > > supply > > > > > response was not present. > > > > > * Gas prices have continued to show strength relative to > > > substitutes, > > > > > which should adversely affect gas demand. FRAC spreads have gone > > > down 34% > > > > > sequentially. SPARK spreads have gone down 12% sequentially, > > > negative for > > > > > gas demand in the short term. > > > > > * The CFTC index on speculative positions of gas traders rose > > > over the > > > > > past week but remains broadly neutral. In other weekly data, > > > nuclear > > > > > utilization moved up 7% sequentially but is up 2% year over year. > > > Coal > > > > > shipments were up 1% sequentially and down 4% year over year. > > > This week's > > > > > total electricity output was the highest ever recorded for this > > > period. > > > > > > > > > > John Mahedy (212) 756 4474 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<112900GASREPORT.pdf>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Name: 112900GASREPORT.pdf > > > > 112900GASREPORT.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) > > > > Encoding: base64