Message-ID: <2605628.1075843952146.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: wes.colwell@enron.com
To: jeffrey.shankman@enron.com
Subject: RE:
Cc: mike.mcconnell@enron.com, richard.causey@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mike.mcconnell@enron.com, richard.causey@enron.com
X-From: Wes Colwell
X-To: Jeffrey A Shankman
X-cc: Mike McConnell, Richard Causey
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Mark_McConnell_June2001\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: MCCONNELL-M
X-FileName: mmcconn.nsf

I understood that the approx. selling price was $58 mm (which is the Enron 
book value after the write downs).  Would there be a reason that EOTT would 
not include that investment in their calculations to get to their desired 
return?  There may be something about the commodity deal I don't understand.  
I will get a meeting with all of us so we can decide what to do.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Shankman, Jeffrey A.  
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:35 AM
To: Colwell, Wes
Cc: McConnell, Mike
Subject: 

Wes, according to your voicemail this morning, you said the 14% return we 
were giving EOTT was due to the way we've written down the plant.  In fact, 
that is not the case.  It is due to our ability to imbed a 14% return due to 
commodity prices and spread values.  It has nothing to do with the plant, as 
I know the deal to be.  

Thanks for the info.

Jeff