We should discuss this asap.
---------------------- Forwarded by Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron on 
08/10/2000 03:21 PM ---------------------------


"Richard Riehm" <rriehm@br-inc.com> on 08/10/2000 02:07:55 PM
Please respond to <rriehm@br-inc.com>
To: <Lorraine_Lindberg@enron.com>
cc:  

Subject: I didn't think I was finished negotiating


Lorraine, I wanted to send you an e-mail about our negotiations regarding
TW/VV interconnect.  I don't want you to feel like I am trying to renegotiate
something you think we agreed to last week.

When we were talking last week about concessions I was seeking from TW in
lieu of underperfomance at the VV interconnect, I gave the example of
reducing our alternate delivery rate on the Jack Rabbit agreement, but I
wanted to talk to you further about it.  We agreed that you would call me
this week to talk about it.  It was my intention that the negotiations were
not over yet, but that we need to talk further.

Quite simply, a discounted rate on an alternate delivery point for an
agreement where I don't have a lot of volume does not do much for
Burlington.  The lack of TW's ability to accept nominated volumes from Val
Verde as mutually agreed to in the IPOA is a big and expensive issue to
Burlington.  It significantly limits our ability to operate the plant
efficiently, honor nominations of third party shippers on the system and it
is causing BR to nominate extra volume into the EPNG system which is
constrained.  All of these factors cost Burlington a significant amount of
money.

Some of the concession I am seeking include:  The same discounted rate to
make alternate deliveries into EPNG as TW at Blanco on agreement 25597.  The
same discounted rate for alternate receipts north of the LaPlatta compressor
station which in contrary to the language on agreement 25597.  I realize that
BR would be alternate firm, but the agreement would be higher in the queue
than interruptible.

Alternatively, what about terminating 25597 retroactively back to August 1.
The agreement expires at the end of the year and I really don't need the way
it is currently structured.  I have an IT agreement for $.03 with all of the
flexibility that I am looking for on 25597.

I have not sold this idea to my boss or anyone else in management.  We have
had a conceptual meeting about this issue.  It was agreed that our first
option was not to ask TW to spend a bunch of money to bring you into contract
compliance.  Instead we wanted to work with you to find some common ground.

The bottom line is that you have to give me something to take to my
management.  Please call me to discuss this.  I really do want to keep these
negotiation up beat.  I think past negotiations have not gone as well as you
or I would have liked.  I really look forward to talking to you and working
something out that is agreeable to both companies.

Richard Riehm
v:  713.624.9074
f:  713.624.9630
email:  rriehm@br-inc.com