I just talked to Jay and he doesn't want to do a long term deal with them.  I have a call in to the consultant.  Max Jay might agree to is 3 months.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Foster, Chris H.  
Sent:	Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:54 PM
To:	Ward, Kim S (Houston)
Subject:	FW: Smurfit-Stone



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ngo, Tracy  
Sent:	Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:40 AM
To:	Foster, Chris H.
Cc:	Malowney, John; Ward, Kim S (Houston); Williams, Jason R (Credit); Rance, Susan; Sonnonstine, Max
Subject:	FW: Smurfit-Stone

Will advise as to any netting benefits we may get regarding gas/power deals with Smurfit.  For now, the gas team does not want to take on any incremental risk with Smurfit from the physical gas perspective.

We can still look at case-by-case physical power deals with EPMI given the collateral that we're holding.

Tracy

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sonnonstine, Max  
Sent:	Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:34 AM
To:	Ngo, Tracy
Subject:	Smurfit-Stone

Tracy,
	Talked to Tanya regarding the long deal for SSCC and relayed to her your suggestion for handling gas.  She is ok with managing both gas and power through EPMI as long as legal is on board and all necessary EPMI docs are in place or amended (netting, physical gas), and that we are comfortable with the receivables risk to SSCC.  She actually mentioned that there has been discussions about merging EPMI and ENA into one entity to more properly handle net positions, so she seems to like your idea.  
	With that, I guess I'll pass this deal and legal relationship onto you unless you need or want me to help with any of this.  

Thanks,
Max