Let me know what the outcome of the meeting is.  Thanks.  Mark



	Peter Keohane
	12/12/2000 12:10 PM
		 
		 To: John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rob 
Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Sharon Crawford/CAL/ECT@ECT, robert.anderson@blakes.com, 
hunterw@macleoddixon.com
		 Subject: NGX/CEL Litigation - Agenda for Tomorrow

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

I think we need to talk to the following issues tomorrow:

1.  Status update on court proceedings;

2.  Evidentiary matters, including:

(a)  formal industry support for our position - without it, we are fighting 
an uphill battle, and I understand the other side will be filing evidence of 
industry support for their position; and 

(b)  a detailed and focused analysis of the pre-NGX and post-NGX index 
consequences, in terms of volume and pricing consequences - our analysis to 
date has proven weak;

3.  Goals, including can we live with the risk of no CGPR AECO index.  In 
other words, our best argument is likely that CGPR cannot pass off what it 
purports to be an AECO index reflecting the broader market, but NGX (and EOL 
for that matter) are free to publish their own index.  The result might be 
that NGX (or EOL for that matter) is free to publish their own index, 
provided it is not passed of as being the CGPR AECO index reflecting the 
broader market, and Enerdata then must publish the broader index, if it 
wishes, as the CGPR AECO index.  However, if CGPR chose not to continue 
publishing, it is likely going to be free to do so, with the effect that 
there would be no CGPR AECO index as referred to in our Confirms and 
Transactions, which would have to then be altered to account for a separate 
and new index, which for the time being could be NGX or EOL.

I have asked our outside lawyers to join in on the call at 2:00 p.m. (Calgary 
time) tomorrow.

Peter