Message-ID: <26665464.1075842220003.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:58:00 -0700 (PDT) From: steve.hooser@enron.com To: dan.hyvl@enron.com Subject: Re: Coogler's Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Steve Van Hooser X-To: Dan Hyvl X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dan_Hyvl_Dec2000_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: HYVL-D X-FileName: dhyvl.nsf I believe Barbara's message is amply clear. Steve ----- Forwarded by Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT on 09/27/2000 05:58 PM ----- Barbara N Gray 09/27/2000 05:57 PM To: Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Coogler's Response I don't think Brian, the President of HPL should be having any meetings with Entex................if someone is to meet with Entex, it needs to be an ENA person; similarly, we should not be asking for a meeting with Entex. If ENTEX wants to schedule a joint meeting,it might be okay to attend............depending on the subject matter...........ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH PRICING SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED...........i BELIEVE MORE FACTS NEED TO BE MARSHALLED. Steve Van Hooser 09/27/2000 05:06 PM To: Barbara Gray cc: Subject: Re: Coogler's Response Barbara, I had a chance to look at this again and I have left a note for Dan (he wasn't in his office) indicating that if by "I think we should involve MidCon in the discussions" Brian intends a joint meeting among ENA, MidCon and Entex to discuss the correction fo nomination irregularities, I think that's an acceptable proposal. If, however, Brian intends a private meeting between MidCon and ENA to discuss our respective contractual obligations to Entex, then I think Dan needs fo advise Brian of the risks attendant to such a meeting. Do you agree? Steve ----- Forwarded by Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT on 09/27/2000 05:00 PM ----- Dan J Hyvl 09/26/2000 03:18 PM To: Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Coogler's Response Steve, Please see Brian Redmond note to Brenda below regarding meeting with MidCon to talk about their imbalances with Reliant Energy. This could possible open both parties up to a torturous interference argument with Reliant Energy. Do you agree? If so, we need to nix meeting idea. ----- Forwarded by Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT on 09/26/2000 03:14 PM ----- Brian Redmond 09/26/2000 10:03 AM To: Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: James I Ducote/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Thomas A Martin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janet H Wallis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve HPL Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Yvette G Connevey/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Coogler's Response Brenda, Can you send me a copy of Bruce's response. Also, we need to meet on Entex this week as you suggest. In my discussions with Bruce, he feels that Entex can account for all of their gas nominations/takes - and that these nominations are not related to intra-month price volatility. We discussed having an initial meeting next week. Then, if it makes sense, I think we should involve MidCon in the discussions as their imbalances seem to be a key factor in Entex changing their nominations. These meetings would be to seek to develop a working protocol that we could use to improve communication and establish more definitive criteria for changing nominations. The end game would be a final meeting with Entex senior management to agree a solution to past sins and a way forward. Brian Enron North America Corp. From: Brenda F Herod 09/25/2000 10:53 PM To: James I Ducote/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Thomas A Martin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janet H Wallis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Redmond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve HPL Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Yvette G Connevey/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Coogler's Response Please read the attached summary of Coogler's response to the audit findings. I would like to get the group together later this week to determine next steps. Jim, Dan and Janet: I would appreciate you all paying special attention to the claims. Do you all know what Bruce is referring to? If you all can do some research before the meeting, I think we'll be able to get to our next steps quicker. Thanks. ---------------------- Forwarded by Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT on 09/25/2000 10:44 PM --------------------------- richard.j.feldmann@us.arthurandersen.com on 09/18/2000 08:29:49 PM To: BHerod@Enron.com cc: danny.d.rudloff@us.arthurandersen.com, frederick.g.rhodes@us.arthurandersen.com, matthew.l.thomas@us.arthurandersen.com Subject: Re: Coogler's Response Brenda, Matthew reviewed Coogler's responses and brings up the following questions. We can do one-of-two things at this point. We can either add the Reliant responses to our audit report as "Auditee Responses", or we can have Enron provide answers and possibly have us do some additional work. The additional work is dependent on Enron's answers to the questions. Please advise. Rick To: Frederick G. Rhodes, Richard J. Feldmann cc: Date: 09/18/2000 04:29 PM From: Matthew L. Thomas, Houston , (713) 237-2629 Subject: Coogler's Response Rick and Fred: I hope things are going well up in Salt Lake City. I have gone through all of Bruce's numbers today. I have come up with a few questions that Enron needs to answer. 1. Reliant claims that in East Texas the cut off for complementary customers is 30 Mcf/ day, does Enron agree? 2. Reliant claims that the "New Technology Contract" overrides or is an exception to the Enfolio Master Agreement. Does Enron agree that this is a legitimate exception? 3. Reliant claims that all off the industrial mis-classified gas in the Houston Division is under "special contracts" with special pricing, and even though they are using less than 100 Mcf /day they receive a lower price of 2.71 per MMBTU. Does Enron agree that this is a legitimate exception? 4. In the Houston Division it appears that Louisiana Pacific only uses gas for heating in the winter, about three months out of the year. Is there total divided by three to find their average usage, or is it divided by 12? Bruce divided by three, we divided by twelve. They are a customer all year, and are not a new customer, or a customer that has left. 5. Does Enron want to give Reliant leeway on the 100 Mcf rule? What will the actual cut off be? Bruce backs out 137,000 Mcf that was close, but not quite 100 Mcf. These are the issues that I see. The first three questions are things that Enron may have to ask Bracewell and Patterson. We were not notified of any of the special contracts that he mentions. Let me know what I need to do. If you guys have questions for me, it might be easier if we all got on the phone and spoke about it. Thanks, Matthew *******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer******************* Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.