Message-ID: <46679.1075842556490.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:24:00 -0800 (PST)
From: drew.fossum@enron.com
To: britt.davis@enron.com, michael.moran@enron.com
Subject: Re: New Matter/KN Transcolorado, Inc. v. Questar Corporation, et
 al/Third-party subpoenas
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Drew Fossum
X-To: Britt Davis, Michael Moran
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: FOSSUM-D
X-FileName: dfossum.nsf

Have we been subpoenaed?  If not, can we ignore this problem?  DF




Michael Moran
01/24/2001 11:58 AM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: New Matter/KN Transcolorado, Inc. v. Questar Corporation, et 
al/Third-party subpoenas

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Moran/GPGFIN/Enron on 01/24/2001 
11:59 AM ---------------------------
From: Britt Davis on 01/24/2001 08:33 AM
To: Michael Moran/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Andrew Edison/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: New Matter/KN Transcolorado, Inc. v. Questar Corporation, et 
al/Third-party subpoenas

Mike and Andy,

Andy, I tried to send this message to Richard as well, but the computer 
directory is fouled up and won't let me do it.  I hope sending it to you is 
sufficient, but if not, let me know.

I received a call from Mike Noone of Mike Beatty & Associates about the 
above-referenced lawsuit, which is filed in state court in Garfield County, 
Colorado.  For Andy's reference, Beatty & Associates is representing the 
Enron entities and a number of other defendants in the Grynberg MDL case.  
This case is not a gas measurement case, which is the gist of the Grynberg 
action.

Noone's firm represents the plaintiff; I did not ask who represents the 
defendants, all of whom are Questar entities.  The lawsuit arises out of a 
partnerhip agreement to build the Transcolorado Pipeline.  The Transcolorado 
Pipeline takes gas from Colorado producers at its northern end to an 
interconnect (or interconnects) at its southern end to either El Paso or TW, 
who deliver the gas to California markets.  After it was built, Questar 
allegedly began building a competing pipeline, called the Main Line 104 
Project (the designation used in the FERC filings), which will connect 
Questar's gathering system at the northern end of the pipeline to the Kern 
River Pipeline.  Kern River will apparently ultimately deliver the gas to 
California markets.  KN contends that the Main Line 104 Project will take gas 
from exactly the same basins as the Transcolorado Pipeline (the Picence and 
Ulenta Basins, if I have that spelled correctly) and is in direct 
competition.  I did not ask Mike what relief KN is requesting.

KN is interested in documentation from TW and ENA that discusses what their 
competitive options are in getting gas from the area served by the 
Transcolorado Pipeline to California markets.  It appears that KN is hoping 
to see some discussion of the Main Line 104 Project as an alternative to the 
Transcolorado Pipeline.  It strikes me that such information may be highly 
sensitive.

I asked Mike why he thought ENA would have any such information, and Mike 
said that he thought ENA might own or have an interest in some producing 
properties in the relevant area.  I told Mike that that would be a surprise 
to me, and that EOG, which is the Enron entity that typically owns such 
interests, was spun off last year.  Mike said he would take another look to 
see why they thought ENA would have such information.

The trial date is one year out, and this is apparently the first round of 
discovery.  Mike would not be surprised if we got a call from Questar's 
attorneys, requesting the same information.

Noone faxed to me the proposed subpoenas, with the understanding that I was 
not authorized to accept service for them.  I will send copies to each of 
you.  Let me know if you would like the Unit to handle or assist in the 
handling of this.

Britt  



