---------------------- Forwarded by Kristi I Louthan/HOU/ECT on 08/11/2000 
03:13 PM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Lisa Walker                           07/18/2000 03:02 PM
	

To: Kristi I Louthan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Cargo/Storage Claim - Styrene at Baytank


---------------------- Forwarded by Lisa Walker/HOU/ECT on 07/18/2000 03:01 
PM ---------------------------


Stuart Bland
07/18/2000 05:26 AM
To: Steven M Elliott/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Lisa Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Graham Cane/LON/ECT@ECT, John H 
Harrison/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: Cargo/Storage Claim - Styrene at Baytank  

Steve this is a classic example why  we have to push and push for progress 
and results.
There is no explicable reason why it can have taken this company so long to 
come up with this conclusion/report.
The discrepancies are very large and not having seen our claim I cannot judge.
The only way you are going to make progress is to get a meeting organised  
immediately and as Ted says go over it point by point. A $900,000 claim 
reduced to $ 150,000 is a serious issue .
From what I can gather from Ted Rosen's note is that  Baytank appear to admit 
to some form of liability/responsibility on the off spec which  I suppose is 
some progress.
I'm copying Graham on this now because he has plenty of experience in Europe 
with these claims .
This must be  sorted out and treated as high priority.
Call me to discuss
Thanks

Stuart



Steven M Elliott
17/07/2000 22:28
To: "Ted Rosen" <trosen@jwortham.com> @ ENRON
cc: Lisa Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stuart Bland/lon/ect 

Subject: Re: Cargo/Storage Claim - Styrene at Baytank  

I guess that we all expected such a reply from the Insurance company.  
Apparently we need to have a meeting to discuss the letter that I just 
received because I am very curious where all these numbers and information 
have come from.

1) What does a contract with Enron and  Philchem have to do with a cargo 
claim?  The product in the tank was owned by Enron and only Enron.  

2) On November 5th we discovered that the product was off-spec.  The 
beginning inventory that day was approx. 6.6mm pounds.  Where does 2mm pounds 
come from?

3) Baytank would not admit to a problem with the tank in which Enron is bound 
by contract.  Enron, under contract, is still obligated to pay costs 
assoiated with the tank.  In order for the tank to be used, it must be 
cleaned since it is considered off-spec.  Enron had nothing to do with the 
tank going off-spec and should be compensated for any and all out of costs 
and expenses incurred while the tank was considered off-spec.  

4) The tank agreement stipulates that a minimum of 3,104 mtons will be paid 
every month for thru-put no matter how much volume goes thru the tank.  
Again, Enron is bound by a contract and is still responsible for these costs 
until Baytank is proven at fault.

Steve Elliott