Subject: Re: Moore - changes needed to ABB contract
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:51:00 -0700 (PDT)

I see your point that the put should be higher up on the list.  In my 
opinion, this will be the biggest issue with ABB. 

From: Eric LeDain@ECT on 07/14/2000 09:25 PM MDT
To: Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT, Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT, Kay 
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Moore - changes needed to ABB contract

I think the put to ABB should be at $3 MM US and the term 6 months from 
agreement execution, as a first cut.  Let's put this higher in the list 
(right after the cost items).
The "law" items probably need cleaning up as you suggest Kay - the first 
dealt with overall Cdn laws and statutes, the second to specs and standards 
and local laws.
The force majeure item (11) should just say that costs for handling through 
storage due to FM shall be at the cost of Seller, if Seller is claiming 
party. 

---------------------- Forwarded by Eric LeDain/CAL/ECT on 07/14/2000 09:16 
PM ---------------------------

	
	From:  Kay Mann @ ENRON                           07/14/2000 04:33 PM

To: Eric LeDain/CAL/ECT@ECT, Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT, Laura 
Luce/Corp/Enron@Enron, Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rusty 
Stevens/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Gregg Penman/Corp/Enron@Enron, Thomas 
Suffield/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:  
Subject: Moore - changes needed to ABB contract

I've made a rough stab at an exhibit to capture the changes which are 
necessary for the ABB contract.  Please comment on the attached, suggest 
changes, etc.  

I will add a rep. or condition about receiving all the change orders, etc, 

FYI, I will be working on this over the weekend, should you care to comment.

Kay