Message-ID: <31939246.1075852815998.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: jeff.donahue@enron.com
To: kenneth.lay@enron.com, greg.whalley@enron.com
Subject: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Donahue, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JDONAHU>
X-To: Lay, Kenneth </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Klay>, Whalley, Greg </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Gwhalle>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \KLAY (Non-Privileged)\Inbox
X-Origin: Lay-K
X-FileName: KLAY (Non-Privileged).pst

Ken and Greg:

Prior to your potential meeting on Wednesday, I just wanted to get my two cents in with respect to Heath Schiesser and the Xlerator.

I vote in favor of supporting the Xlerator based on a few rationales:
First and foremost, Heath is a quality player - with a unique set of skills that would contribute to Enron's human capital;
The discipline that the Xlerator would bring to new businesses, in and of itself, probably justifies its existence:  for example, I believe that the investment in AMPS approaches $20 million - much of which is at risk due to inadequate discipline; and
The Xlerator appears to be a low cost R&D option of relatively limited size while compared to Enron - that may very well incubate businesses which create meaningful value for Enron.
At the same time, I acknowledge the costs, both financial and resources, and risks but feel the above benefits are greater.

Although support from the Management Committee would be nice, I believe that support from you two would provide the foundation upon which Heath and the Xlerator can be successful.

Jeff Donahue