|
|
Enron Mail |
Dear Britt
Attached below is a summary of the test results. Sorry I didn't revert with the summary sooner, but I needed the time to double check. I would still like to have Eric run through it just in case. I will update the team if there are amendments. Please disregard the rough summary for Thailand in my earlier e-mail. I had missed out one test (18 July) and mistakenly said that Lead was off spec for the 14 July test. I met with Neale Gregson today who has in turn spoken with David Best on what test method for metals we ought to propose for the joint testing. I understand David will be conferring with Steve Jones and advising. Regards Matt From: Britt Davis@ENRON on 08/08/2000 10:30 PM To: Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT cc: Janice R Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Deborah Shahmoradi/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: D3605/In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Matt, Thanks for the heads-up on this issue. I will confer with Janice and one of us will get back to you. Meanwhile, I think I may need further clarification about what testing methods were used by SGS at loadport and at discharge in Thailand and the Phillipines. My key area of concern is whether (as now appears unlikely from your e-mail) SGS tested using both ASTM D3605 without ashing and ASTM D3605 with ashing at all the relevant points, and whether the test results were consistent; e.g., whether the product was on-spec for both methods immediately before loading, but off-spec for both methods at discharge in Thailand and the Phillipines. May I impose on you to provide one summary chronology of the analysis done at loadport and both discharge ports, with particular emphasis on (a) whether both testing methods (ASTM D3605 without ashing and with ashing) were used, and the results, and (b) the results for filterable dirt? (You have just sent something like this for the Thailand cargo only, which I found very helpful). Also, if SGS or anyone else has made comment about the reliability or unreliability of the filterable dirt analysis (or any other aspect of the testing done by SGS of this cargo), please let me know about that as well. I appreciate your good help. Britt Matthias Lee@ECT 08/08/2000 06:39 AM To: Janice R Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT, Britt Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT Subject: D3605 Dear Janice / Britt I know that Janice has kindly agreed to return to the team to advise and coordinate with Mike Brown's team and myself in regard to the D3605 issue, whilst I am to look to Britt's guidance for the contamination on the Elang cargo. My apologies therefore for mixing the issues for the puposes of this e-mail. The joint testing of samples of the Elang cargo is planned to take place end next week. The joint testing would include metals as well as filterable dirt, so we would need to decide, in quite short order, on the test method we want to propose for metals for relevant parties to agree. Although we believe the contamination would be dramatically demonstrated by the level of filterable dirt, the metals clearly would also be an important factor. As you may be aware, the loadport sample results which we are presently relying on to say that the cargo was on spec when loaded, was tested with "ashing" for metals. We would not be able to say whether another loadport sample would test on spec for metals using straight D3605. If it doesn't test on spec at the joint testing using straight D3605, the vessel owners would surely argue that the cargo would have been rejected by First Gas anyway, independent of the filterable dirt. Although such as argument may not defeat our case entirely, it is very likely to impact on the quantum we would be able to recover. It seems that the preferred test method for metals at the joint testing would therefore be "ashing" to avoid conflict with existing loadport sample results. We still have SGS's support for that, but we need to convince Minton Treharne who acts for the cargo underwriters as well as the Owners/P&I Club. Still, just in case details of our dispute with Mitsubishi become known to Firts Gas, we may wish to avoid proposing a test method for joint testing that would be inconsistent with the one we ultimately present to First Gas, which for obvious long term objectives ought to be the CORRECT test method acceptable to parties whether D3605 or "ashing" or some other method. That said, I think if we are able to go with "ashing" for the joint testing, it is not likely to jeopardize our position with First Gas. I note Janice's preference for US experts over European experts for the D3605 issue. Have we been able to get any US experts' view on the right test to use (whether D3605 or "ashing")? Has Enron formed a view on the "correct" test method? If we have been able to source a "friendly" US expert, we may want to have his input for the contamination issue. Your views and guidance would be most appreciated. Thanks and regards Matt I also note Janice's preference to source for US experts to assist us on the D3605 issue over European experts and was wondering whether we have been able to for
|