Re: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT

David and Richard, FYI.

Deborah, please print and file.

Britt
----- Forwarded by Britt Davis/Corp/Enron on 08/16/2000 07:55 AM -----

Matthias Lee@ECT
08/16/2000 03:40 AM

To: Britt Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Deborah Shahmoradi/NA/Enron@Enron, Brenda McAfee/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A
Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO

Britt

Please see below.

Regards
Matt

From: Britt Davis@ENRON on 08/11/2000 02:38 AM
To: Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT
cc: david.best@clyde.co.uk, Deborah Shahmoradi/NA/Enron@Enron, Brenda
McAfee/Corp/Enron@ENRON

Subject: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT

Matt,

I've reviewed your good summary (which I know is subject to Eric Tan's
review). As you know, David has asked you in an e-mail sent today whether
you have any evidence that the D3605 method with ashing was used at loadport,
as your summary indicates. In addition, I have the following questions for
when you have time to take a look at them; there are a lot, so don't feel
like you have to get them all answered tomorrow:

1. Was filterable dirt analysis used at loadport? YES If not, why not? If
so, what was the test method and results? D2276 ON SPEC AT 2.0 If a test
other than D2276 was used, why was some other test used? If (a) no
filterable dirt analysis was done at all or (b) some method other than D2276
was used, on whose recommendation/authority was this done? Do we have any
evidence that FGH was on notice/agreed to this?

2. Why was D5452 used for filterable dirt on the Ship Composite sample
taken before discharge at Thailand?SGS THAILAND WAS NOT ABLE TO USE D2276. I
WILL FORWARD E-MAIL DATED 05/07/00 FROM SGS THAILAND ON THIS ISSUE
SEPARATELY. On whose recommendation/authority was this done? D5452 WAS
RECOMMENDED BY SGS THAILAND AND APPROVED BY ERIC. Do we have any evidence
that FGH was on notice/agreed to this? NO. TESTS SUBSEQUENT TO REJECTION
WERE CONDUCTED BY ECTRS IN ATTEMPT TO VERIFY CAUSE/SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
AND HOPEFULLY RECTIFY AND DELIVER TO FGH. ALTHOUGH THEY KNEW WE WERE DOING
RE-TESTS, FGH WAS NOT INVOLVED.

3. Was D2276 used at any time on the Ship Composite sample taken before
discharge at Thailand? NO. THERE WAS NO OTHER SHIP COMPOSITE SAMPLE
AVAILABLE. ALL OTHER "THAILAND" TESTS ARE FROM SHORETANK SAMPLES. If so, what
were the results? If the decision was made not to use D2276, again, on whose
recommendation/authority was this done? Do we have any evidence that FGH
was on notice/agreed to this?

4. Why/how did Caleb Brett Singapore/Subic Bay get involved? BECAUSE OF
THE VARIATION IN TEST RESULTS, ECTRS WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS NOT A
FAULT IN SGS TESTING PROCEDURE AND ENGAGED CALEB BRETT TO DO AN INDEPENDENT
TESTS AS A COUNTER CHECK. AT THIS STAGE, ECTRS WAS STILL HOPINGTO RECTIFY THE
SITUATION AND DELIVER THE CARGO TO FGH.

5. Re the Caleb Brett Singapore testing, all the usual questions about why
D5184/5185 were used (instead of D3605), whether Caleb Brett tested for
filterable dirt, etc. CALEB BRETT SUBIC/SINGAPORE DO NOT USE D3605 FOR
METALS. I WILL FORWARD E-MAIL DATED 17/07/00 FROM CALEB BRETT SINGAPORE ON
THIS SUBJECT SEPARATELY. D5184/5185 WAS RECOMMENDED BY CALEB BRETT AND AGREED
TO BY ERIC TO COUNTER CHECK ON SGS TEST RESULTS. AGAIN, THESE TESTS WERE
CARRIED OUT BY ECTRS WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF FGH WHICH HAS AT THE TIME
ALREADY REJECTED THE CARGO. ECTRS WAS AT THE TIME ATTEMPTING TO FIND THE
FAULT AND HOPEFULLY RECTIFY IT AND DELIVER THE CARGO TO FGH.

Again, please do not go outside Enron for answers to these questions. Don't
hesitate to ask if they require clarification. I greatly appreciate your
help.

Britt