Message-ID: <28830059.1075855060014.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: paul.y'barbo@enron.com
To: greg.curran@enron.com
Subject: ProCaribe Proposal to Purchase Eco LPG - Jan '01
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Y'Barbo, Paul </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=PYBARBO>
X-To: Curran, Greg </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Notesaddr/cn=d53789f9-9ade430b-8625689e-6ae356>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \PYBARBO (Non-Privileged)\EcoElectrica
X-Origin: Ybarbo-P
X-FileName: PYBARBO (Non-Privileged).pst


Greg,

Attached are some revisions to Jaime's worksheet.

Here are some pertinent facts:

1. Re: Requirement to have 15 days of fuel on-site.   The lowest inventory levels (3 fuels) Eco has seen this year was just before the May LNG cargo. Eco was down to 15.8 days on-site. If Eco had sold 1,000,000 gallons of LPG to ProCaribe in January, then ProCaribe would have decreased its March purchase by 1,000,000 gallons (1 day of Eco consumption) and Eco would have needed to buy 200,000 gallons (0.2 days) on the March cargo. In other words, Eco would have needed to replace only 20% of the LPG it sold. The total cargo size of the March cargo would have been 800,000 gallons less than it was. In May, the fuel on-site would have been exactly 15 days.

2. Mont Belvieu in March was $0.544 and in May it was $0.512. Eco's buyback price in March would have been $0.614 versus its sales price to ProCaribe of $0.70.


Let me know if you have any other questions.


Paul