stephanie, I know that Ed McMicheal has appointed someone from the estate to start to consolidate all of our transportation positions ( if any remain ) and also our obligaitons.  I will confirm his name and from here on in, you may be asked only to assist, not lead these discussions.  However, for the purposes of PGT ( at this time ), I would ask that you continue on your path of resolution. 
 
I will follow up with Canada this a.m. to ascertain what they have done with the NOVA and ANG portions. 
 
BT 

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Stephanie 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:56 PM
To: Van Hooser, Steve
Cc: Tycholiz, Barry
Subject: Contractual Obligations Associated with Long Term Pipeline Contract



Greetings Steve:

We have had many inquiries regarding our transportation agreements, specifically PGT, Kern River and El Paso.  

Most pressing is PGT's request to market capacity on our behalf. Although I do not believe we need to have PGT perform this function, I do believe we could mitigate some demand charge exposure for "the estate".  

Are you available to meet with Barry and I first thing tomorrow morning? We need to have an answer for PGT's request. We need to know what the contractual rights are for 1) the pipeline when a shipper declares bankruptcy and 2) our ability to mitigate demand charge exposure by releasing capacity on a short term basis (month at a time?).

Better yet, can we unilaterally turn capacity back to any of these pipes or do we need to reach some type of court approved settlement?

Obviously, we have many questions. Please advise of your ability to meet ASAP.

Thanks,

Stephanie