Message-ID: <11241876.1075858077099.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 <mcontant@cypressasset.com>
X-To: Martin.Cuilla@enron.com
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Martin_Cuilla_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
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 <mcontant@cypressasset.com> 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 <mcontant@cypressasset.com> on 11/30/2000 10:14:46 AM
> >
> > To:   Martin Cuilla <Martin.Cuilla@enron.com>
> > 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
> > > > > <mailto:mahedyjp@bernstein.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >  <<112900GASREPORT.pdf>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >                           Name: 112900GASREPORT.pdf
> > > >    112900GASREPORT.pdf    Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
> > > >                       Encoding: base64