Message-ID: <22147693.1075842771914.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:00:00 -0800 (PST)
From: gerald.nemec@enron.com
To: mark.whitt@enron.com, paul.lucci@enron.com, tyrell.harrison@enron.com
Subject: Kern River Bid Letter
Cc: barry.tycholiz@enron.com, julie.gomez@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: barry.tycholiz@enron.com, julie.gomez@enron.com
X-From: Gerald Nemec
X-To: Mark Whitt, Paul T Lucci, Tyrell Harrison
X-cc: Barry Tycholiz, Julie A Gomez
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Gerald_Nemec_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: NEMEC-G
X-FileName: gnemec.nsf

Mark,  Attached is the letter agreement we discussed.  Please review.  It is 
rough.    



Some issues to note:

1.  The Kern PA cannot be assigned without their consent, which shall not be 
unreasonably withheld.  If Kern didn't like the fact that we are receiving 
assignment from 3 or 4 other shippers, they might withhold consent if they 
thought we were superceding their bid procedures.  Not sure if they would, 
but it is a risk.

2.  If the assignment is done after the producer executes the firm transport 
agreement, Kern could require to capacity to be released via capacity release 
at max rate.  

3.  I took a stab at the mark-to-market calculation.  Probably needs more 
substance though.

Lets discuss.