Sorry I think you sent this e-mail to the wrong man. But a agree whole heartedly.
regards
ali

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kitchen, Louise  
Sent:	07 August 2001 19:40
To:	Coleman, Alistair
Subject:	FW: MHI 501 F Disposition Planning

Progress since your email - We did have a meeting too with the owners of the turbine book (Calger, Jacoby and Wiggs) last Thursday.  Clearly we are pursuing all avenues to sell, mitigate, place as many of the turbines as soon as possible.  I am also suggesting that we look as to whether we could negotiate a cancellation with Mitsubishi. 

Ben can provide you with more detail of where we are with each customer, if you want a copy of what they gave me let me know.  But generally I probably want rid of these turbines more than anyone.

Louise
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kitchen, Louise  
Sent:	Saturday, July 21, 2001 10:56 AM
To:	Jacoby, Ben; Wiggs, Brett; Calger, Christopher F.
Subject:	RE: MHI 501 F Disposition Planning

Thanks I'll wait for the report.

Have a good week-end

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jacoby, Ben  
Sent:	Saturday, July 21, 2001 9:42 AM
To:	Kitchen, Louise; Wiggs, Brett; Calger, Christopher F.
Subject:	RE: MHI 501 F Disposition Planning

Louise:

We are presently working with Jody Pierce to get the accounting system for the turbine book in place, and a turbine report form prepared. We will have this to you in the next 10 business days. The only recent news is the sale of the steam turbine for $400k, and that we intend to utilize an outside consulting firm (Navigant) to enhance our ability to get some interest going on the SW501D5A. Lastly, we are reviewing the possibility of having the Ft. Pierce project use MHI unit #3 instead of unit #1 in light of the apparent market interest in units 1 and 2, and the current Ft. Pierce construction schedule which is better suited for unit #3 than unit #1.

Mike Coleman is putting together a budget and program to monitor (from a technical perspective) and maintain the 501D5A and the 501Fs.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Regards,

Ben

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kitchen, Louise  
Sent:	Friday, July 20, 2001 8:16 AM
To:	Wiggs, Brett; Jacoby, Ben; Calger, Christopher F.
Subject:	FW: MHI 501 F Disposition Planning

All valid points - I wouldn't mind an update on where we are on the turbine book (including yesterday's good news).

Thanks

Louise

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Coleman, Mike  
Sent:	Thursday, July 19, 2001 5:50 PM
To:	Wiggs, Brett; Jacoby, Ben; Calger, Christopher F.
Cc:	Virgo, Robert; Mays, Wayne; Tapscott, Ron; Fairley, David; Golden, Bruce; Kitchen, Louise
Subject:	MHI 501 F Disposition Planning

With the shipment of two of the four units from MHI scheduled for August and no viable place to ship them, our exposure to increasing costs associated with these units will start to climb quickly.  We need to move agressively to minimize our risk in this position.

Based on discussion with a number of people, I would strongly recommend that we make full efforts to sell units 1 and 2 as quickly as possible.  John Garrison has identified a number of potential buyers, and I believe that Brett Wiggs in in communication with one or more of them as we speak.

We should inform MHI that we will now target unit 3 for Fort Pierce, given the slowdown in the Fort Pierce schedule and the inability to get further reductions in pricing from MHI on unit 1.  If we also drop the dual fuel requirement for Fort Pierce, we should provide some project savings to that project.  Prior to informing MHI, we shoud have Jackson Chaeng status the auxiliaries for unit 3 so we have a basis for understanding any appropriate cancellation costs.

I also recommend that we tentatively target unit 4 for Tallahassee, unless sale of units 1 and 2 were contingent on delivering a 3rd unit to a buyer.  In the next three weeks we will review Tallahassee versus best turbine fit and availability of alternative equipment to determine if we want to continue to target unit 4 to that project.

Finally, MHI has requested that we allow an extention of ship date for unit 1 from August 2 to the end of August.  I think it is in our best interests to agree to that directly, given that we can't tell them where to ship it and would immediately face claims for storage costs if we insist on an August 2 ship date.  We should ask that they forgo storage costs on auxiliaries until the later ship date.

Probably everyone knows some of this, and some know all of this, but hopefully the overall picture is of value.

Thanks!

Mike Coleman