Message-ID: <24459079.1075840949506.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 08:36:58 -0700 (PDT) From: f..calger@enron.com To: louise.kitchen@enron.com Subject: RE: Thoughts post turbine meeting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Calger, Christopher F. X-To: Kitchen, Louise X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \ExMerge - Kitchen, Louise\'Americas\Turbines X-Origin: KITCHEN-L X-FileName: louise kitchen 2-7-02.pst Louise, I would not take a $10MM hit on the Mitsubishis right now - we have just started to market these and there seems to be some interest (even if it appears to be flaky). If we forced a QIII sale (drop dead date - you are fired if it doesn't happen), I think we might lose as much as $10MM - $20MM. Although I am not comfortable with our overall turbine position, I am comfortable with our current approach. ABB liquidity is more of a concern even though it is a significantly smaller exposure. Regards, Chris Calger 503-464-3735 -----Original Message----- From: Kitchen, Louise Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 11:41 AM To: Calger, Christopher F.; Wiggs, Brett; Jacoby, Ben Subject: Thoughts post turbine meeting Is there any possibility of negotiating a way out of the Mitsubishi contracts by paying them a fee. I know we have no cancellation charge but can we just say we will pay them $10mm to cancel the contracts? If we could do we want to do this? How much money would we lose (how much of a write down would we take) if I told you I wanted to get rid of the turbines by the end of September? As an aside, the Mitsubishis will be leaving the Enron Americas Balance Sheet now and moving to EGAS. This does not and should not however change anything in terms of how we are moving forward. For the company overall, we need to move these turbines (as with all the others) as soon as possible and we (in the Americas) are in a much better position than EGAS is to move them. I have spoken to Jim on this issue who is obviously in agreement with the way forward. Louise