Message-ID: <9299811.1075853080519.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:49:16 -0700 (PDT) From: courtney.barker@enron.com To: randy.janzen@enron.com Subject: Duke Field Services Contract Cc: lynn.blair@enron.com, vernon.mercaldo@enron.com, lorna.brennan@enron.com, jo.williams@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: lynn.blair@enron.com, vernon.mercaldo@enron.com, lorna.brennan@enron.com, jo.williams@enron.com X-From: Barker, Courtney X-To: Janzen, Randy X-cc: Blair, Lynn , Mercaldo, Vernon , Brennan, Lorna , Williams, Jo X-bcc: X-Folder: \LBLAIR (Non-Privileged)\Blair, Lynn\Inbox X-Origin: Blair-L X-FileName: LBLAIR (Non-Privileged).pst In our effort to decide if we need to re-negotiate contract 101021 and 101073 with Duke to possibly eliminate the BTU Daily Gas Wire numbers and instead use the Gas Daily numbers, I have attached a spreadsheet that gives the Gas Daily and BTU Daily Gas Wire numbers for Mid 13 and Demarc. Randy, could you please run the Gas Daily numbers in your calculation for the last 13 months? We would like to see the bottom line impact between using the BTU Daily Gas Wire publication vs. the Gas Daily publication. We are hoping this will give some insight on whether it would be beneficial to us to re-negotiate the 2 contracts. Thanks, Courtney Barker (402) 398-7130