Subject: Re: Eunice Gas Plant
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:25:00 -0800 (PST)

We received preliminary sample results yesterday. Sample #1 (TPH = 97 mg/kg) 
and Sample #2 (TPH = 121 mg/kg) were collected from the east wall of the 
excavation about 2 feet outside the NNG facility fence and about 4 feet below 
ground surface. Sample #3 (TPH = 22400 mg/kg) was collected from the east 
wall of the excavation about 8 feet outside the NNG facility fence and about 
8-10 feet below ground surface. There was little visual evidence that this 
soil sample was affected, but apparently it is. 

In my discussions with Texaco's consultant, I inquired about their sample 
analysis plan. He indicated that they were submitting soil samples for TPH 
analysis by method 8015mod (GRO & DRO). I was concerned about comparing 
results from the 8015mod analysis to our older data generated by method 
418.1. In light of this I submitted our samples for analysis by method 418.1. 
The 8015mod method is a more compound specific analysis than the 418.1 method 
and often the more appropriate method to use. However, in this case it may 
not be the most appropriate method. The 8015mod method is a GC method used to 
measure the mass of hydrocarbon compounds that will elute within specific 
time windows. The first time window is set up to measure the mass of gasoline 
range organics (GRO). The second time window is set up to measure the mass of 
diesel range organics (DRO). Any hydrocarbon compounds that elute after the 
DRO time window are not measured. This would not be an issue if the soil was 
contaminated with a light condensate, but Texaco's oil pit was reportedly 
used to accumulate liquids not suitable for feed stock to the plant. I think 
we can assume this meant heavy hydrocarbons. The 418.1 method is a less 
sophisticated method that measures petroleum hydrocarbon compounds over a 
wider range of carbon number, that is, it will measure the presence of 
heavier hydrocarbons that would not be measured using method 8015mod. In 
light of this, the 418.1 method is likely the more appropriate method for 
assessing soil affected by the Texaco oil pit, particularly when results are 
compared to older data generated using method 418.1.

I have requested our lab to confirm the results for Sample #3 using method 
418.1. In addition, I have asked that they run the sample using method 
8015mod (GRO & DRO) so that we can compare the two results. We should have 
these results later next week. I would like to get this additional 
information and discuss it among ourselves before we respond to Texaco. Right 
now I am inclined to say that the Texaco oil pit is neither implicated or 
cleared as the culprit of contamination found in NNG's monitor well MW-3. 

   

	From:  George Robinson                           02/15/2000 08:54 AM

To: Bret Reich/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Louis Soldano/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Eunice Gas Plant  

Bret: 
I collected three soil samples from the east wall of the excavation area. We 
should have results back from the lab later this week. Although the samples 
did not appear to be affected with petroleum  hydrocarbons, I suggest we take 
a look at the results before initiating any further discussion with Texaco.
George

Bret Reich
02/14/2000 04:50 PM
To: George Robinson/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc: Louis Soldano 

Subject: Eunice Gas Plant

fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Bret Reich/ET&S/Enron on 02/14/2000 04:48 
PM ---------------------------

"Pope, D Bruce" <[email-masked]> on 02/14/2000 03:21:23 PM
To: "'Reich, Bret W.'" <[email-masked]>
cc:  

Subject: Eunice Gas Plant

Bret--the work on the old Texaco pit is finished and I am told that neither
Texaco , nor the NMOCD found evidence of migration to the Northern
compressor site. Once you have had a chance to talk to your clients,  and
the Enron consultants who witnessed the work, give me a call and lets
discuss the next step.  I am not sure the settlement agreements we drafted
are still relevant.

As you can see , I am now in our Houston office. You can now contact me at
the numbers shown below. The email address is unchanged. I will be in the
office through Thursday, and out of town the following week.

Let me know when you are ready to discuss this.
D. Bruce Pope
Senior Counsel
Texaco Inc.
Texnet 752-7883
(713) 752-7883
FAX (713) 752-4762
Email: [email-masked]

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION : Do not read, copy or disseminate
this communication unless you are the intended addressee.  This
communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are on notice that any unauthorized disclosure, copying,
distribution, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the
electronically transmitted materials is prohibited.  If you have received
this communication in error, please call us (collect) immediately at (713)
752-7883 and ask to speak to the sender of the communication.  Also, please
notify immediately via e-mail the sender that you have received the
communication in error.