Message-ID: <2796084.1075842259964.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:17:00 -0800 (PST) From: gerald.nemec@enron.com To: lauri.allen@enron.com, dan.hyvl@enron.com Subject: Re: Texas General Land Office IT Transport Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Gerald Nemec X-To: Lauri A Allen, Dan J Hyvl X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dan_Hyvl_Dec2000_June2001\Notes Folders\Gas\Hpl customers X-Origin: HYVL-D X-FileName: dhyvl.nsf Lauri, From a legal standpoint, we can cut the nomination on an interruptible agreement at our discretion. The contract clearly gives us this right. I haven't specifically reviewed the contract, but I am assuming it is our standard form. I will check this. Yes, I would consider HISD facilities to be state facilities. The fact that this goes to Entex first complicates the issue. Dan, was the intent that it be directly delivered to state facilities, or if it ultimately ended up at state facilities? Lauri A Allen 12/19/2000 10:57 AM To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Texas General Land Office IT Transport I haven't heard anything back from you guys on this. Any insight? I know Linda Roberts is also working a deal with TGLO to convert bbls to mmbtus which could mean incremental volumes that TGLO would be trying to get into Midcon. ---------------------- Forwarded by Lauri A Allen/HOU/ECT on 12/19/2000 09:37 AM --------------------------- From: Gerald Nemec on 12/05/2000 04:12 PM To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Lauri A Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Texas General Land Office IT Transport Dan, Any input you have on this contract would be appreciated. ----- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 12/05/2000 04:11 PM ----- Lauri A Allen 12/05/2000 02:53 PM To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Eric Gillaspie/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward.D.Gottlob@enron.com Subject: Texas General Land Office IT Transport Gerald/Eric- I have a couple of questions regarding TGLO transport contract 012-88494-202. We are currently delivering a volume of 28.000mm into various Midcon interconnects on this contract that are designated to go to Reliant/Entex for the purpose of heating HISD schools. The transport contract stipulates different rates for this delivery depending on whether the gas is intended for state facilities or not. My first question, then, is: are HISD schools considered state facilities? And, if HISD schools are considered state facilities, does the fact that this gas is being delivered to them via Reliant/Entex utilizing Midcon's pipe make any difference? I am asking these questions not only to assure that we are recouping the correct transport rate, but also to determine what the consequences might be if I interrupt this delivery. We are having difficulty getting enough gas into Midcon to cover our Entex noms and I am just exploring my options. I would also expect that this volume should decrease when HISD closes for the Christmas holidays- does the fact that this is an IT agreement give me enough leverage to cut this nom if TGLO does not do so voluntarily? Thanks for your help.