Message-ID: <10972491.1075851684888.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 04:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mathew.gimble@enron.com
To: v.weldon@enron.com
Subject: Re: FPRP -- Proforma Performance Input/Review M Today 5/7 2:30 PM
 3AC 33C1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Mathew Gimble
X-To: V Charles Weldon
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Charles_Wheldon_Nov2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: WHELDON-C
X-FileName: vweldon.nsf

---------------------- Forwarded by Mathew Gimble/HOU/ECT on 05/07/2001 11:=
30=20
AM ---------------------------
From: Mathew Gimble on 05/07/2001 09:42 AM
To: Darrell Stovall/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: David Fairley/Enron@EnronXGate, Mike Coleman/Enron@EnronXGate, Jennifer=
=20
Bagwell/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeffrey Keenan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bruce=20
Golden/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT=20
Subject: Re: FPRP -- Proforma Performance Input/Review M Today 5/7 2:30 PM=
=20
3AC 33C1 =20

Darrell,

There still appears to be some confusion regarding the inclusion of FPUA's =
#6=20
ST into the deal.  The heat rate of the #6 ST should not be included in the=
=20
overall plant heat rate (neither gross nor net).  The heat rate of the=20
facility should include the GT and FPUA's #7 and #8 STs.  Duct firing #6=20
needs to be determined and calculated on a stand-alone basis.  Bottom line:=
 =20
whether FPUA or FPRP uses #6 to generate power, the heat rate associated wi=
th=20
#6 is the duct fired heat rate.  I have been anticipating results to look=
=20
something like the following:

Combined Cycle HHV  7,800 heat rate (based on 183MW + 82MW =3D 265MW using=
=20
2,067MMBtu/hr)
FPUA 9,500 HHV  9,500 heat rate on 82MW =3D 779MMBtu/hr
FPRP Combined Cycle HHV 2,067MMBtu/hr - 779MMBtu/hr =3D 1,288MMBtu/hr for 1=
83MW=20
=3D 7,038 heat rate

Duct Firing HHV   10,000 heat rate on 14MW =3D 140MMBtu/hr (should equal th=
e=20
actual amount of additional gas needed to duct fire)

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Mathew




Darrell Stovall@ENRON
05/07/2001 08:38 AM
To: Mathew Gimble/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ron Tapscott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer=20
Bagwell/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Jeffrey Keenan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bruce=20
Golden/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mike Coleman/Enron@EnronXGate,=
=20
Sandra EECC Rodriguez/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT=20
Subject: FPRP -- Proforma Performance Input/Review M Today 5/7 2:30 PM 3AC=
=20
33C1

I=01,d like to set up meeting to review performance inputs to proforma ... =
today=20
5/7 at 2:30 PM 3AC 33C1.

Jennifer, please coordinate with ENA participants and with Sandra R @ 5_642=
6=20
to ensure we have the essential folks available.

Updated Proforma Input (Still Preliminary)
We worked with CMI much of last week to revise HRSG configuration to=20
accommodate addition of ST#6. This is turning out to be moderate change to=
=20
design ... potential cost/schedule impacts still under assessment ...=20
continuing/should finalize this week. Also updated assessment of aux loads =
--=20
increased split to GT resulting in reduced net output.=20

Output =3D 185 - 3.5 =3D 181.5 MW net (due to higher GT aux loads)

HR (Plant-net) =3D 7980/7196 HHV/LHV (increased due to impact of ST#6)

HR (GT-gross) =3D 10,326/9311 HHV/LHV=20

Degradation -- See attached curves ... this is the best currently available=
=20
degradation data. It's a Sieman-Westinghouse curve -- still trying to get M=
HI=20
data. Typically, either apply curves or use ~5% flat degradation as=20
alternative. Needs to be coordinated with Operating/maintenance plan.



I'll be working with engineering personnel to firm up as much as possible a=
nd=20
be ready for meeting this afternoon.

thx/dgs