ON further reflection, if Mavrix is to be a wholly owned sub of Enron 
Pipeline Company (or whatever the current name is of the top-tier ETS entity) 
then that entity ought to issue the guaranty.  Mavrix intends to buy capacity 
from TW and possibly NN.  It would be innappropriate to have TW issue the 
guaranty if TWs guaranty would likely operate in favor of TW.  Same for NN.  
DF  



Rod Hayslett

01/31/2001 01:16 PM
To: Jerry Peters/NPNG/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan 
Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Tracy 
Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, John Jesse/NPNG/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Mavrix  

The consideration isn't the point, its the fact that a creditworthy party, 
Enron for instance, has guaranteed the business and in fact they are 
creditworthy.    Therefore we haven't given Mavrix a special deal compared to 
other shippers, since they are now by way of the guarantee creditworthy.    
As I told you on the phone, Enron will do this for others as well, it's just 
not cheap, it's like dealing with the guys in the pool hall!





Jerry Peters
01/31/2001 12:56 PM
To: Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan 
Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Tracy 
Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, John Jesse/NPNG/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Mavrix  

What is the objective of having Mavrix pay its parent/affliate (ETS) a 
guarantee fee?   Will this prove that granting credit was 
non-discriminatory?  I would argue no, since we don't look at the 
consideration paid for guarantees of other companies.  The fact that a 
credit-worthy party has issued a guarantee should be enough.  Legally, Mavix 
is a separate company.  Parent companies frequently guarantee obligations of 
subsidiaries without any direct consideration (other than enabling their 
subsidiary to transact business).



Rod Hayslett

01/31/2001 07:56 AM
To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven 
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Tracy Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, Jerry 
Peters/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, John Jesse/NPNG/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Mavrix  

I didn't necessarily mean that we would pay a third party, just someone else 
at Enron.



   
	
	
	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           01/31/2001 07:14 AM
	

To: Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven 
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Tracy Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, Jerry 
Peters/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, John Jesse/NPNG/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Mavrix  

I agree with Rod.  By having it done by an outside party seems to make more 
sense from an external view.   MK 



Rod Hayslett

01/31/2001 06:40 AM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven 
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Tracy Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, Jerry 
Peters/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, John Jesse/NPNG/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Mavrix  

First, Mavrix is a subsidiary of what company?     I don't believe I have 
seen that anywhere, but had heard that it was TW.   If it is not a subsidiary 
of NNG why would NNG issue a guaranty for Mavrix?     I can have the 
guarantee priced and then Mavrix can pay to have someone guarantee it's 
positions.     This is not rocket science, but I believe we need to make an 
effort to keep things looking like they are at arms length and that this is a 
separate company.     If you all agree, let me know and I can have someone 
get with Steve Harris and get the guaranty priced.

For Jerry and John:   Let me know but I think we can get this priced down 
here inside the day.     Let me know how you want to proceed. 
 



Drew Fossum
01/30/2001 06:01 PM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rod 
Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Tracy Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Mavrix  

I guess you wouldn't want to use any of the joint venture entities to issue 
the guarantee because of the complexities of their ownership structures.  You 
also wouldn't want to go outside of ETS because of marketing affiliate 
issues.  By process of elimination, I guess I'm OK with NN issuing the 
guarantee.  In my view, if Mavrix' commercial strategies are unsuccessful and 
Northern has to perform on the guarantee, good luck recovering any of those 
dollars in Northern's next rate case.  Thanks.  DF



Susan Scott
01/30/2001 02:27 PM
To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven 
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Tracy 
Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Mavrix

Mavrix Transportation Trading Corp., which is a subsidiary of ETS, needs to 
satisfy TW's creditworthiness requirements in order to enter into a 
transportation agreement with TW.  Paul Cherry has suggested that Northern 
Natural Gas issue a guarantee.  Please let me know whether you think this 
would be acceptable.  If Mavrix wanted to hold NNG capacity, TW could issue 
the guarantee.