I believe Barbara's message is amply clear.

Steve
----- Forwarded by Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT on 09/27/2000 05:58 PM -----

	Barbara N Gray
	09/27/2000 05:57 PM
		
		 To: Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Coogler's Response

I don't think Brian, the President of HPL should be having any meetings with 
Entex................if someone is to meet with Entex, it needs to be an ENA 
person; similarly, we should not be asking for a meeting with Entex.  If 
ENTEX wants to schedule a joint meeting,it might be okay to 
attend............depending on the subject matter...........ANYTHING HAVING 
TO DO WITH PRICING SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED...........i BELIEVE MORE FACTS 
NEED TO BE MARSHALLED.



	Steve Van Hooser
	09/27/2000 05:06 PM
		 
		 To: Barbara Gray
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Coogler's Response

Barbara,
I had a chance to look at this again and I have left a note for Dan (he 
wasn't in his office) indicating that if by "I think we should involve MidCon 
in the discussions" Brian intends a joint meeting among ENA, MidCon and Entex 
to discuss the correction fo nomination irregularities, I think that's an 
acceptable proposal.  If, however, Brian intends a private meeting between 
MidCon and ENA to discuss our respective contractual obligations to Entex, 
then I think Dan needs fo advise Brian of the risks attendant to such a 
meeting.  

Do you agree?

Steve
----- Forwarded by Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT on 09/27/2000 05:00 PM -----

	Dan J Hyvl
	09/26/2000 03:18 PM
		 
		 To: Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Coogler's Response

Steve,
 Please see Brian Redmond note to Brenda below regarding meeting with MidCon 
to talk about their imbalances with Reliant Energy.  This could possible open 
both parties up to a torturous interference argument with Reliant Energy.  Do 
you agree?  If so, we need to nix meeting idea.
----- Forwarded by Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT on 09/26/2000 03:14 PM -----

	Brian Redmond
	09/26/2000 10:03 AM
		
		 To: Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: James I Ducote/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Thomas A 
Martin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janet H Wallis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Steve HPL Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Yvette G Connevey/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: Re: Coogler's Response

Brenda,

Can you send me a copy of Bruce's response.  Also, we need to meet on Entex 
this week as you suggest.  In my discussions with Bruce, he feels that Entex 
can account for all of their gas nominations/takes - and that these 
nominations are not related to intra-month price volatility.

We discussed having an initial meeting next week.  Then, if it makes sense, I 
think we should involve MidCon in the discussions as their imbalances seem to 
be a key factor in Entex changing their nominations.   These meetings would 
be to seek to develop a working protocol that we could use to improve 
communication and establish more definitive criteria for changing 
nominations.  

The end game would be a final meeting with Entex senior management to agree a 
solution to past sins and a way forward.

Brian



   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  Brenda F Herod                           09/25/2000 10:53 PM
	

To: James I Ducote/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Thomas A 
Martin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janet H Wallis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Redmond/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve HPL Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Yvette G Connevey/Corp/Enron@ENRON 
Subject: Re: Coogler's Response

Please read the attached summary of Coogler's response to the audit 
findings.  I would like to get the group together later this week to 
determine next steps.  

Jim, Dan and Janet:  I would appreciate you all paying special attention to 
the claims.  Do you all know what Bruce is referring to?  If you all can do 
some research before the meeting, I think we'll be able to get to our next 
steps quicker.  Thanks.
---------------------- Forwarded by Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT on 09/25/2000 
10:44 PM ---------------------------


richard.j.feldmann@us.arthurandersen.com on 09/18/2000 08:29:49 PM
To: BHerod@Enron.com
cc: danny.d.rudloff@us.arthurandersen.com, 
frederick.g.rhodes@us.arthurandersen.com, 
matthew.l.thomas@us.arthurandersen.com 
Subject: Re: Coogler's Response




Brenda,

Matthew reviewed Coogler's responses and brings up the following questions.

We can do one-of-two things at this point.  We can either add the Reliant
responses to our audit report as "Auditee Responses", or we can have Enron
provide answers and possibly have us do some additional work.  The additional
work is dependent on Enron's answers to the questions.

Please advise.

Rick


To:   Frederick G. Rhodes, Richard J. Feldmann
cc:
Date: 09/18/2000 04:29 PM
From: Matthew L. Thomas, Houston , (713) 237-2629
Subject:  Coogler's Response

Rick and Fred:

I hope things are going well up in Salt Lake City.  I have gone through all of
Bruce's numbers today.  I have come up with a few questions that Enron needs 
to
answer.

1. Reliant claims that in East Texas the cut off for complementary customers 
is
30 Mcf/ day,  does Enron agree?
2. Reliant claims that the "New Technology Contract" overrides  or is an
exception to the Enfolio Master Agreement.  Does Enron agree that this is a
legitimate exception?
3. Reliant claims that all off the industrial mis-classified gas in the 
Houston
Division is under "special contracts" with special pricing, and even though 
they
are using less than 100 Mcf /day they receive a lower price of 2.71 per MMBTU.
Does Enron agree that this is a legitimate exception?
4. In the Houston Division it appears that Louisiana Pacific only uses gas for
heating in the winter, about three months out of the year.  Is there total
divided by three to find their average usage, or is it divided by 12?  Bruce
divided by three, we divided by twelve.  They are a customer all year, and are
not a new customer, or a customer that has left.
5. Does Enron want to give Reliant leeway on the 100 Mcf rule?  What will the
actual cut off be?  Bruce backs out 137,000 Mcf that was close, but not quite
100 Mcf.

These are the issues that I see.  The first three questions are things that
Enron may have to ask Bracewell and Patterson.  We were not notified of any of
the special contracts that he mentions.  Let me know what I need to do.  If 
you
guys have questions for me, it might be easier if we all got on the phone and
spoke about it.  Thanks,

Matthew








*******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer*******************


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.  If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery 
of
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by
reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent 
to
Internet email for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.