Talk:Death Star (business)

Comments about this article
The article, as it appears on 20 Mar 2007, presents a view of the Enron Death Star or Circular Scheduling trading practice that is consistent with the views of Enron's critics, but that is inconsistent with reality. Beware of using this article without doing futher research.Energymkt 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do more research before describing these strategies in a criminal light. Arbitrage - discrete or not - is not a criminal activity as you seem to imply. --Marketwizard04 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth too scary for you, right? Spoken like a pair of Enron shills. Fuck the both of you.Hommedepommes (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How is this not relieveing congestion?
''According to the company's own memo they would be paid "for moving energy to relieve congestion, without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion." For example, if the California power grid was congested with energy flowing south, Enron would schedule energy to be transmitted north to Oregon. They would receive a payment from California for apparently relieving congestion on the grid. Then Enron would schedule the energy to be transferred back to its point of origin, but not through California. Ultimately the energy would end up right back where it started, and Enron would be paid by California without actually putting any electricity on their grid.''

I'm not a power disribution engineer, but I fail to see how this is not releiving congestion? Congestion is merely a routing issue. If there is southbound congestion, then by routing power into California and north, then assuming the same lines are being used, this new northward flow partially cancels the original southern flow. This is equivalent to California using Enron's power, and thus pulling in less from up north. Now if Enron buys power back from up north, re-routed to Enron's source by a different route at the correct rate to offset the power they sent into California, the the net effect is as though Enron did not supply any power to California, but did cause power from up north to be routed down, and then west into Californa, bypassing the congested lines.

Thus Enron's actions, assuming they were not on paper only, did in fact relieve the congestion. So I'm a bit confused by this.129.74.231.235 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the company only scheduled energy to be transmitted, but never actually did so. 74.207.139.170 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Did they relieve congestion? Perhaps, but that has little to do with the illegality of Enron's actions. Nor does it absolve Enron of its crime of raping California.Hommedepommes (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No Guilty Plea?
The article mentions Mr. Forney's indictment and scheduled trial, but not his guilty plea. According to CBS News, John Forney pleaded guilty on August 5, 2004. Gv250 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)