Message-ID: <22068761.1075842905986.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:33:00 -0800 (PST)
From: gerald.nemec@enron.com
To: peter.keohane@enron.com, eric.ledain@enron.com
Subject: Kern River Bid Letter
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Gerald Nemec
X-To: Peter Keohane, Eric LeDain
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Gerald_Nemec_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: NEMEC-G
X-FileName: gnemec.nsf

Attached for your review is a draft letter for third parties whom with we 
plan to participate in the Kern River Open Season.  Barry asked that I 
forward to you as well for review.  
----- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 03/14/2001 09:31 AM -----

	Gerald Nemec
	03/13/2001 07:00 PM
		 
		 To: Mark Whitt/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul T Lucci/NA/Enron@Enron, Tyrell 
Harrison/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Barry Tycholiz/NA/Enron@ENRON, Julie A Gomez/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Kern River Bid Letter

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.