|
|
Enron Mail |
One additional point. If we aren't going to try to rebut the "funny money"
argument on the merits, can we at least have Leslie Lawner or someone loaded up to dispute their circumstantial case? Both Amoco and Dynegy argue that marketing affiliates hold a much higher percentage of the capacity on their sister pipelines than they do on non-affiliated pipes. They argue that unfairness or abuse can be inferred from that fact alone. The Enron pipes may be a statistical oddity on this. A very small percentage of NN and TW capacity has been held by affiliates. I think the same is true on Border and to a lesser extent on Florida. Amoco and Dynegy can't have it both ways. If they want to infer abuse from a large percentage of a pipe's capacity being held by marketing affiliates (i.e., El Paso) then they also have to infer an absence of abuse from a small percentage (i.e., the Enron pipes). Can we argue this??? DF Shelley Corman 01/19/2001 09:32 AM To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: danny.mccarty@enron.com, Robert Kilmer/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Ray Neppl/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bambi Heckerman/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, Teb Lokey/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dorothy McCoppin/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Janet Place/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, Frazier King/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Janet Butler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Nancy Bagot/OTS/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Update on Marketing affiliate Conference I think Joan will do great at addressing the issue that there is no evidence of abuse. I'm not as confident that she will be as indignent as I would be about why we spent so much money on transactional reporting if nobody is going to use it. I'm going to write up a q/a for her on this points. We probably should make transparency a focal point in our follow-up comments.
|