Message-ID: <281771.1075858717801.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:26:20 -0700 (PDT) From: richard.shapiro@enron.com To: lisa.yoho@enron.com Subject: RE: restrictive contract clauses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Shapiro, Richard X-To: Yoho, Lisa X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \RSHAPIRO (Non-Privileged)\Shapiro, Richard\Deleted Items X-Origin: Shapiro-R X-FileName: RSHAPIRO (Non-Privileged).pst Yes. -----Original Message----- From: =09Yoho, Lisa =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:07 PM To:=09Shapiro, Richard Subject:=09RE: restrictive contract clauses I know (about leaving all this, not about Houston). Does that mean you'll = miss me? =20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Shapiro, Richard =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:06 PM To:=09Yoho, Lisa Subject:=09RE: restrictive contract clauses How can you leave all this ? and Houston...the best place to live(I'm serio= us) -----Original Message----- From: =09Yoho, Lisa =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:57 PM To:=09Leibman, Lara Cc:=09Shapiro, Richard Subject:=09FW: restrictive contract clauses Sound familiar? Let's sit down with Mark on this when you have time. Tha= nks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: =09Schroeder, Mark =20 Sent:=09Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:50 PM To:=09Yoho, Lisa Cc:=09Pack Jr., Scott Subject:=09restrictive contract clauses Lisa - as you probably know, the Pitt seam is characterised by a few domina= nt players, most notably Consol and RAG. Consol, especially, is resistant = to our business model (transparency, liquidity). We have heard that they a= re putting clauses into contracts that prohibit the resale of their coal, b= y their utility customers. I used to know more about this area of the law,= but isn't this impermissible? If so, (but don't do this, yet), is it poss= ible to give DOJ a "heads up", so they could send appropriate demands for i= nformation? We definitely would not want our fingerprints on this. Policy= makers should be on our side, as a matter of energy policy, because in time= s like these, when coal supplies are still tight, you want free movement of= the commodity to where it is needed, when it is needed, rather than creati= ng artificial shortages because someone long Pitt seam coal cannot re-sell = it. Also, such restrictions are likely to inhibit development of effective= risk management mechanisms, like the Northerern App. contract that Alleghe= ny has been talking about (and which I understand we might put on EOL, if/w= hen the contract is developed). Your thoughts? thanks mcs