Message-ID: <28869666.1075845811552.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:13:00 -0800 (PST) From: john.rigby@enron.com To: ben.jacoby@enron.com Subject: Siemens - Westinghouse 31 Jan AM Update. Cc: fred.kelly@enron.com, scott.laidlaw@enron.com, ron.tapscott@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com, peter.nassab@enron.com, james.studdert@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: fred.kelly@enron.com, scott.laidlaw@enron.com, ron.tapscott@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com, peter.nassab@enron.com, james.studdert@enron.com X-From: John G Rigby X-To: Ben Jacoby X-cc: Fred L Kelly, Scott Laidlaw, Ron Tapscott, Kay Mann, Peter Nassab, James P Studdert X-bcc: X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: MANN-K X-FileName: kmann.nsf 1. Met with Ron Tapscott, Jim Studdert and Scott Laidlaw, primary subject insurance claim status. Scott Laidlaw gave Jim a letter from Siemens in which Siemens says the generator is a total loss (or cost to repair is greater than a new one). Jim will use this to give to the adjustor to get the survey and adjusting process going again. Jim needs a point of contact at Westinghouse to get access to the generator and get it unboxed for the adjustor to look at. The generator that is shown in the report is the 2nd generator in the hold and is not ours. Apparently our generator has not been unboxed and thus not directly observed. Rumor has it that the water line is not as high on the Enron box as it was on the box of the generator that is not Enron's. In my conversation with Mark T this morning I asked him for the name and telephone number of the Westinghouse point of contact for the adjustor so that the adjustor can arrange to see the generator. He stated he would have SW PM provide us that point of contact. I will sent Mark an Email reminding him of such. At the risk of making anyone or everyone nervous- but I think it is important for everyone to understand, I believe getting the pay-out value from the insurance adjustor is a vital element of the Calpine- SW deal. If the adjustor comes back with something less than the replacement value (other than the deductible) because he asserts that the generator was not (as a result of the water- but is now because it sat in a box unattended) a total loss, or presently is not viewed as a total loss then SW will go to full battle stations asserting the loss occurred when Enron had risk of loss and damage. 2. Mark T and I talked status. Mark T asked if we thought that Calpine would buy the Unit. Mark T indicated that he spoke with Mike Costa and per Mike C SW is one to two days away from reaching a deal with Calpine on the Nov Unit. I queried Mark on whether SW has other customers for the Nov Unit. He was properly evasive, indicated that SW did not, but said opportunities always come along. Mark T indicated he questioned whether the April delivery would work for Calpine- he agreed that an April delivery of the generator would get them on line in time, but as he saw it he wondered if Calpine had an engineer in line to build the plant. In the midst of the conversation he wondered whether NEPCO would even have the capacity to get it on line given other work. I am not sure whether that was a deliberate query to see if we were interested in having NEPCO build the plant. Ben Summary of conversation- if we Enron as sure we have a sale with Calpine, then I think Mark was saying we can do the deal. I think the ball is our court to flush out Calpine (am I spelling it correctly?)- within the next 24 to 48 hours. 3. Update on expedited shipment by air. Cost would be in the order of magniture of $275,000 +/- (versus $30- $50K by vessel) , problem- latest information is that as configured it will not fit on an airplane. We had people looking to see if anything can be taken off the generator to get it on the airplane. I mentioned this to Mark T, he questioned airplane transport in that he felt SW transportation people would have already suggested it. 4. Ron and James. I queried Mark T to determine whether SW had gone after the shipper. I put it in the context that we did not want to inadvertently upset what SW might be doing with the shipper. He did not know. I doubt we will get any information on that front.