---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
03/06/2001 01:52 PM ---------------------------


Nancy Corbet
09/07/2000 01:42 PM
To: Greg Curran/CA/Enron@Enron
cc: Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Coralina 
Rivera/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 

Subject: Sent to Efrain yesterday afternoon

Greg, attached is the response from Cabot after Eco tendered the draft COU. 
Cabot stated that they disagreed that Article 6.4 (a) of the LNG Sales 
Contract requires Cabot to sign a COU . Nevertheless Cabot stated in the 
final paragraph that they are willing to enter into an agreement with Eco 
covering all or some of the matters proposed in the conditions of use. In the 
last two sentences they stated that they were reviewing the COU but that 
agreement clearly could not be reached by the July 10th delivery date.  (We 
at Enron recognize that the COU may require negotiation on some points and we 
are ready and eager to get the negotiations going. )

 Todd will fax you copies of the 2 letters from him to Cabot regarding the 
July 10th and August 14th deliveries and other correspondence between himself 
and Cabot. Basically in the 2 letters referenced above we stated that despite 
our attempts to schedule a meeting and complete the COU , this had not been 
achieved and while we appreciated that the Cabot merger was in process we 
considered  this matter urgent. We stated our position that the LNG Agreement 
provided for such execution and that acceptance of a ship at the terminal did 
not represent a waiver of any of our rights pursuant to that agreement. We 
again requested that Cabot attend to this matter prior to the next shipment.

Should Cabot bring up the issue of whether COUs are industry practice, you 
may want to raise the fact that this facility is different from others in the 
US which are FERC regulated and have tariffs which address some of the issues 
raised in the COU. ( In other parts of the world where there is no "FERC" , 
COUs are common industry practice. )Since Cabot has agreed to sit down with 
us I would not recommend a debate on the legal/contractual requirements per 
se. Threatening them with breach of contract or telling them they cannot 
deliver is not a practical or commercial solution . 

  Our concern now is that having had 2 ships deliver without having a COU in 
place and now likely a third next week, we may be weakening our position that 
we have not waived any legal rights . 

My understanding is that Rick wants a commitment to get this done - 
regardless of the current Cabot / Tractobel situation . I will e-mail you 
again the draft COU and also a comparison of our legal position with /without 
the COU for your general information.            
---------------------- Forwarded by Nancy Corbet/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
09/07/2000 01:09 PM ---------------------------


Todd Peterson
07/07/2000 10:30 AM
To: Daniel R Rogers/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Nancy 
Corbet/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, masseye@arentfox.com
cc:  

Subject: Sent to Efrain yesterday afternoon


Here is a copy of Cabots respone to the COU and a few other things.

TP
---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
07/07/2000 10:25 AM ---------------------------


"Jane Michalek" <jmichalek@cabotlng.com> on 07/07/2000 04:50:29 AM
To: Todd.Peterson@enron.com
cc:  

Subject: Sent to Efrain yesterday afternoon





FYI

(See attached file: letter to Eco re cou and first delivery.doc)

 - letter to Eco re cou and first delivery.doc