Chris, as per our discussion, I just want to confirm that we have the ability 
to break the contract with the EPC provider at any time.  Further, I want to 
confirm that our costs will be minimal and that this whole process (ie 
putting a number on a term sheet) has been based on trying to maximize the 
short run value of the project.  In other works, we have no intention of 
lifting their offer.  Finally, we are not ordering HRSG's or steam turbines.

These guys add no value and they are killing me!

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 09/26/2000 
07:14 PM ---------------------------


David W Delainey
09/26/2000 07:12 PM
To: Dick Westfahl/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Larry L 
Izzo/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:  
Subject: Las Vegas CoGen

Guys, I have explained the strategy/tactics that have lead to this position 
in some detail.  In my opinion the company is not at risk and potentially ENA 
could create significant value from a project that we have very little 
invested.  I understand the construction risk on the bid as much as anyone 
and we have no intention of lifting their offer. As far as EECC involvement, 
as I had mentioned, Coleman was a part of all these discussions.  I will 
argue that Mike and the ENA deal team made the right call necessary to 
maximize return in the short run for Enron without investing significant 
dollars or taking significant risks.

Obviously, I was unsuccessful in explaining such a sophisticated strategy.

Regards
Delainey


---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 09/26/2000 
07:01 PM ---------------------------


Dick Westfahl@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
09/26/2000 09:30 AM
To: Dave Delainey
cc: Larry L Izzo/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Las Vegas CoGen

Dave:

See attached memo.

 

Thanks,

Dick