Subject: Re: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:43:00 -0800 (PST)

britt,

thanks your notes below. 

re bug issue - noted. just one question; do you think we should notify our 
suppliers in view that, if there is a problem as a result of the bugs, we 
will have to proceed against them??? they would want to have a rep to view 
the testing as well, i would think.

re joint testing - pls copy eric tan on what needs to be done once a decision 
is made on where/when the testing will be done.

re freight payment - before offering to just pay the $500,000, do you think 
we should propose it be paid to an interest bearing escrow account pending 
the results of the joint testing (or whatever other "pending" limitation you 
think might help us)??

rgds

From: Britt Davis@ENRON on 09/11/2000 07:26 PST
To: Paul Henking/SIN/ECT@ECT
cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A 
Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, James P 
Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO  

Paul,

Thanks for your e-mail.  Parenthetically, I'd be happy to explain how we got 
to where we are on our strategy; maybe a telephone call would be best.  Let 
me know when you are available.  I can call you early a.m. or late p.m.  

Re the bug issue:  we were aware of this, although I am interested to hear 
that SGS raised it with you and Eric in mid-October.  I have discussed this 
in the past with David Best, and spoke with him on the telephone this morning 
about what SGS told you.  We don't think we should put anyone on notice about 
the bug issue unless and until it appears and is confirmed at the joint 
testing.  Otherwise, we may be raising an inherent vice argument for both 
Mitsubishi and our own cargo underwriters.   Let me know if you have a 
different view (on this or anything else I put in this e-mail). 

Re Mitsubishi's response to our settlement demand:  David Best has just 
spoken with Sian Heard, Mitsubishi's lead London solicitor.  It is clear from 
her that Mitsubishi will not be settling prior to instituting arbitration.  
It is also clear that Mitsubishi will not consider any substantial settlement 
without Heard's advice.  Best believes that Heard will recommend that the 
joint testing take place before giving Mitsubishi an exposure evaluation.  In 
sum, while our attempt at settlement prior to joint testing was a worthwhile 
effort, to avoid the risk and expense of the problematic joint survey, it now 
appears to David and me to be at a dead end.

Re the joint testing:  Again, David and I believe that the joint testing 
should proceed as quickly as it can be arranged.  Neither our cargo 
underwriters nor Mitsubishi will move off dead center unless we do so.  Given 
the problems with SGS's lab in Singapore, the "bug" issue that SGS in Subic 
Bay has raised (again), and that SGS did the pre-purchase of product for ECT 
that proved off-spec, I have asked David to re-visit with Steve Jones, our 
chemist, the logistics and cost of having the testing done in the U.K.  I 
have also asked him to consider whether Heard might be amenable to splitting 
the costs of transporting the samples from Singapore to the U.K.  I would 
like to get ECT's authority quickly to authorize the joint testing to go 
forward.

Re the selection of arbitrators:  David has discussed three Q.C.s that he and 
Neale agreed were appropriate with Hearn.  Of those three, Hearn likes 
Nicholas Hamblin, who will charge 275 pounds an hour, and $1,750 pounds per 
day.  She will be conferring with Mitsubishi about using him as the sole 
arbitrator.  Given that we have initiated a good-faith discussion of the 
choice of arbitrators with Mitsubishi, David advises that we do not need to 
worry about sending Mitsubishi a letter tomorrow with our choices of 
arbitrator on it.  We can wait for Hearn to respond, then I will make a 
formal request for your authority to agree to one arbitrator who has already 
been accepted by Mitsubishi.

Re the without-prejudice settlement of Mitsubishi's freight and demurrage:  I 
read you loud and clear (and thanks for making clear that the freight claim 
is only about $500,000, not $760,000, as I had inadvertantly indicated in my 
last e-mail).  As I previously mentioned, David and I are on board with this 
idea, given the difficult circumstances of this case.

Let me know if I have inadvertantly mischaracterized anything you said.

Britt   

	Paul Henking@ECT
	11/09/2000 02:25 AM
		
		 To: Britt Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A 
Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, James P 
Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO

britt,

thanks your reply which is noted. you will notice i have excluded david best 
and ngregson (?) preferring to keep my comments in house as privileged info, 
unless you feel this msg should be forwarded to them later.

firstly, i am getting nowhere with mitsubishi on the settlement front. i have 
gone so far as to mention this morning to mitsuru that if this does goes to 
arbitration, and should mitsubishi succeed in their position, this will only 
serve to increase our claim by a similar amount since these costs would then 
become part of our contamination claim. he seems quite content to let this go 
to arbitration. as an example, he was suppose to call me back this afternoon 
but did not.

secondly, with regards to your comments, i would just respond/add the 
following information:

1. i don't know if i am switching tactics so much as following what should 
have been done in the beginning (i.e. submit the claim to our insurance 
company and let them proceed against the owners). i honestly feel the 
arbitrators will say, "pay the freight (and possibly the demurrage now) and 
settle the contamination claim as a separate issue". clearly, the c/p says 
that freight is due without deduction once the vessel has completed discharge.

on the issue of the "pre-sale" survey, i have discussed this matter 
internally with eric tan. seems our position is that singapore considered the 
sample that was drawn as a bad sample as well as we were not sure that the 
test methods used conformed with the testing methods required for first gas. 
this position is proved by the loading of the pacific virgo when the product 
subsequently tested on-spec for first gas. granted, it might still become an 
issue but, as you say. it could become an issue in either proceeding.

i am getting a little confused on the matter of the joint testing. verbally i 
was advised that enron did not want to have the joint testing - at least not 
on a prompt basis. your msg now says that we do want to test the product and 
it should be done as soon as possible (as mitsubishi - and your advices that 
the underwriters and hear owner's p and i club would want). i assume this 
change is the result of the arbitration. 

be that as it may, i do have a bit of information that you may, or may not, 
be aware of or find relevant. when eric tan and i visited first gas in 
mid-oct to meet the personnel at first gas and witness one of the cargoes 
being discharged at the plant, we also took the opportunity to meet with sgs 
in subic bay to see their facilities and meet their personnel. during the 
conversation the subject of the elang cargo came up and the comment from sgs 
is that they were fairly certain it was off-spec due to "bugs". this may 
sound silly but i have heard of this before and is a problem with petroleum 
products.

it seems sgs even went so far as to test the product themselves for these 
"bugs" and got a positive result. this test was not requested by enron or 
first gas and was done some time later in this process. i understand there 
may be some concern on our part over our subsequent sales to third parties if 
we knew there were bugs in the product. i would have to say that this was not 
known at the time and even today is only conjecture based on sgs' advices 
mid-oct (well after these sales). sgs also described "changes" to the product 
which would fit with the cargo having bugs (i.e. a strong sulphur smell and 
change in colour).

if the testing is now done, i do not know if these bugs will be detected or 
not. however, if they are in the ship's samples, they may have changed the 
sample sufficiently that even a visual observation may detect the problem. 
the next problem becomes proving from where the bugs originated. were they in 
the previous cargo tanks that were not cleaned properly? or were they in the 
condensate when the cargo was loaded? obviously, testing of the shore sample 
prior to loading will determine the answer. if the shore sample is ok, then 
they had to come from the ship. if the shore sample also has bugs, then we 
should be claiming against our suppliers.

this of course assumes the suggestion put forth by sgs is in fact correct. 
just something else to be considered.

2) i am not saying that we pay the full amount immediately but only the 
freight portion (about $500,000). we then advise mitsubishi (or their 
lawyers) that we will now review the demurrage claim (about $260,000) and 
revert by say end nov. the demurrage claim has been sent to our london 
office's demurrage department and i have asked them for their comments on the 
claim. after all, there may be issues with the ship's pumping performance or 
simple laytime errors which may reduce the demurrage claim. they will try to 
get me a response before the weekend.

in this manner, we pay part of the money but still have a smaller portion 
which we may apply against our claim once the test results are known. i will 
leave this to legal as to decide how the approach to mitsubishi or their 
lawyers should be made

rgds