Message-ID: <31152312.1075851943157.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:49:00 -0800 (PST) From: todd.peterson@enron.com To: pybarbo@enron.com Subject: Sent to Efrain yesterday afternoon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Todd Peterson X-To: pybarbo@enron.com X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Paul_Ybarbo_Nov2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: YBARBO-P X-FileName: pybarbo.nsf ---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 03/06/2001 01:52 PM --------------------------- Nancy Corbet 09/07/2000 01:42 PM To: Greg Curran/CA/Enron@Enron cc: Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Coralina Rivera/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: Sent to Efrain yesterday afternoon Greg, attached is the response from Cabot after Eco tendered the draft COU. Cabot stated that they disagreed that Article 6.4 (a) of the LNG Sales Contract requires Cabot to sign a COU . Nevertheless Cabot stated in the final paragraph that they are willing to enter into an agreement with Eco covering all or some of the matters proposed in the conditions of use. In the last two sentences they stated that they were reviewing the COU but that agreement clearly could not be reached by the July 10th delivery date. (We at Enron recognize that the COU may require negotiation on some points and we are ready and eager to get the negotiations going. ) Todd will fax you copies of the 2 letters from him to Cabot regarding the July 10th and August 14th deliveries and other correspondence between himself and Cabot. Basically in the 2 letters referenced above we stated that despite our attempts to schedule a meeting and complete the COU , this had not been achieved and while we appreciated that the Cabot merger was in process we considered this matter urgent. We stated our position that the LNG Agreement provided for such execution and that acceptance of a ship at the terminal did not represent a waiver of any of our rights pursuant to that agreement. We again requested that Cabot attend to this matter prior to the next shipment. Should Cabot bring up the issue of whether COUs are industry practice, you may want to raise the fact that this facility is different from others in the US which are FERC regulated and have tariffs which address some of the issues raised in the COU. ( In other parts of the world where there is no "FERC" , COUs are common industry practice. )Since Cabot has agreed to sit down with us I would not recommend a debate on the legal/contractual requirements per se. Threatening them with breach of contract or telling them they cannot deliver is not a practical or commercial solution . Our concern now is that having had 2 ships deliver without having a COU in place and now likely a third next week, we may be weakening our position that we have not waived any legal rights . My understanding is that Rick wants a commitment to get this done - regardless of the current Cabot / Tractobel situation . I will e-mail you again the draft COU and also a comparison of our legal position with /without the COU for your general information. ---------------------- Forwarded by Nancy Corbet/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 09/07/2000 01:09 PM --------------------------- Todd Peterson 07/07/2000 10:30 AM To: Daniel R Rogers/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Nancy Corbet/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, masseye@arentfox.com cc: Subject: Sent to Efrain yesterday afternoon Here is a copy of Cabots respone to the COU and a few other things. TP ---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 07/07/2000 10:25 AM --------------------------- "Jane Michalek" <jmichalek@cabotlng.com> on 07/07/2000 04:50:29 AM To: Todd.Peterson@enron.com cc: Subject: Sent to Efrain yesterday afternoon FYI (See attached file: letter to Eco re cou and first delivery.doc) - letter to Eco re cou and first delivery.doc