This is what I mentioned today. 
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT on 10/16/2000 
11:49 AM ---------------------------


Rick Bergsieker@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
10/15/2000 09:39 AM
To: V V Rao/SIN/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey A Shankman@ECT
cc: Clay Harris/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: MetGas Equity Sale & SPA Disclosure  

Jeff---fyi---this train is leaving the station and it's nto clear who is 
driving it



V V Rao@ECT
10/12/2000 09:44 PM
To: Clay Harris/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rick 
Bergsieker/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:  

Subject: IMPORTANT: MetGas Equity Sale & SPA Disclosure

I am getting increasingly concerned about the MetGas equity sale and the pace 
at which it is proceeding.  We discussed this last week and I thought the 
consensus was to slow this process down and exclude partners who could impede 
our strategic global LNG interests -- for example Petronas and BP Amoco.   I 
now understand that we are making presentatations on the equity sale to 
potential investors next week in Singapore (BP, Petronas, CEPA, Mitsubishi, 
etc).   

I don't like the notion that we must disclose our TIGA to SPA to potential 
investors.  There are several aspects of that SPA which gives us strategic 
advantage over other competitors - for example the diversion clause of 0.5 
MMTA.  I like even less the thought that one of our partners will see the 
Master Supply Agreement (MSA) to MetGas.  Once a competitor sees the MSA they 
will have some insight on how to undermine our supply aggregation efforts and 
how Enron manages its Global LNG risk book.  This is a serious concern and we 
must ensure that it doesn't happen -- first by exclusion and then by 
negotiation (i.e. in the shareholders agreement we don't give investors with 
less than 10% equity the right to see contracts -- by the way Petronas does 
this routinely with its partners in MLNG TIGA).

Your thoughts??

vvr