Subject: Re: JM - Trailblazer
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:35:00 -0700 (PDT)

More broadly speaking, we need to insure that the assignment of capacity 
leaves the pipeline no recourse back to Enron for everything outside of the 
contract year.  If this is not the case, we should revisit the credit 
reserve.   If this is the case then we need to rebook the transactions to 
reflect this.

Bill

   

From:  Russell Diamond                                                        
     09/25/2000 01:50 PM	

	                           

To: Mark Whitt/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul T Lucci/NA/Enron@Enron, Gerald 
Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Hilgert/HOU/ECT@ect
cc: William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: JM - Trailblazer

To All:

After speaking to Bill, we are giving approval to this second transaction 
between JM Huber and ENA with the condition that the assignment of transport 
capacity is taken on by JM for BOTH transactions as previously discussed, and 
I initial this contract which clearly states this assignment of capacity.  It 
was our assumption, in Credit, that this initial transaction with JM was to 
include the assignment of capacity, which lead to a re-evaluation of the 
credit reserve.  It is imperative now, that once the contract and 
transactions are executed, they be re-confirmed in TAGG to more accurately 
reflect the exposure of JM

Russell