John, I have reviewed the contracts (Asset Agreement and the GPA) and here are my=  thoughts regarding your request.
In short, the agreements do not specific= ally address capacity being needed by third parties.
ENA does have a right=  to all of their capacity free and clear of all encumbrances.
Last year we=  did discuss this issue (the interruptible VNG customers wanting to take re= leases of VNG capacity), but at the time Jim Scabareti indicated that he wa= s going to play hard ball with his interruptible shippers in year 2 (i.e.
n= ow), since VNG was really getting tight on assets due year-on-year load gro= wth and no new capacity additions.
He gave the assets up last year because=  he did not want to have any noise at the VSCC when the VSCC was considerin= g the affiliate relationship between VNG and AGLES.
However, as I reflect = on it now, it seems to me that VNG (aka Sequent) really needs to weigh heav= ily the decision to release any assets to third parties through this winter=  (interruptible or otherwise).
At a minimum, any releases should be done r= ecallable based on weather forecasts based on some HDD amount.
The profit = sharing provision is the same for years 1 and 2.
My suggestion is that you do the following: (1) remind Sequent about the de= liverability issue facing VNG and (2) develop a plan with Sequent for talki= ng to Customers, so as to minimize any VSCC risk since the VSCC thinks Sequ= ent is VNG's asset manager.
=20  Mark Breese is back in the office tomorrow and I will confer with him as we= ll.
You might seek Jeff Hodge's thoughts as well.
If you have any questio= ns, please ask.
Regards,

VNG transportation capacity
John, I have reviewed the contracts (Asset Agreement and the GPA) and here are my= thoughts regarding your request.
In short, the agreements do not specific= ally address capacity being needed by third parties.
<COMPANY> does have a right= to all of their capacity free and clear of all encumbrances.
Last year we= did discuss this issue (the interruptible VNG customers wanting to take re= leases of VNG capacity), but at the time Jim Scabareti indicated that he wa= s going to play hard ball with his interruptible shippers in year <NUMBER> (i.e.
n= ow), since VNG was really getting tight on assets due year-on-year load gro= wth and no new capacity additions.
He gave the assets up last year because= he did not want to have any noise at the VSCC when the VSCC was considerin= g the affiliate relationship between VNG and AGLES.
However, as I reflect = on it now, it seems to me that VNG (aka Sequent) really needs to weigh heav= ily the decision to release any assets to third parties through this winter= (interruptible or otherwise).
At a minimum, any releases should be done r= ecallable based on weather forecasts based on some HDD amount.
The profit = sharing provision is the same for years <NUMBER> and <NUMBER>.
My suggestion is that you do the following: (<NUMBER>) remind Sequent about the de= liverability issue facing VNG and (<NUMBER>) develop a plan with Sequent for talki= ng to Customers, so as to minimize any VSCC risk since the VSCC thinks Sequ= ent is VNG's asset manager.
=<NUMBER> Mark Breese is back in the office tomorrow and I will confer with him as we= ll.
You might seek Jeff Hodge's thoughts as well.
If you have any questio= ns, please ask.
Regards,
time jim affiliate relationship regarding request short sequent liverability ball interruptible shippers agreement gpa based weather tight assets year leases vng capacity manager number mark