Message-ID: <7088373.1075854168397.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:51:00 -0700 (PDT) From: daren.farmer@enron.com To: robert.cotten@enron.com Subject: Re: Revised Nomination - June, 2000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Daren J Farmer X-To: Robert Cotten X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Darren_Farmer_Dec2000\Notes Folders\'sent mail X-Origin: Farmer-D X-FileName: dfarmer.nsf Bob, Go ahead and accept the nom revision. I believe that this is with PGE, not El Paso. How do the rest of our noms compare with EOG? I f they have a higher volume at another meter than we do, I would like to increase our nom there. In effect, I want to keep our physical index position as close as possible to what we have in the system now. D Enron North America Corp. From: Robert Cotten 05/31/2000 04:04 PM To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Revised Nomination - June, 2000 Daren, Charlotte Hawkins is having trouble confirming the volume of 5,733 with El Paso. El Paso will not confirm the volume that high. EOG revised their nomination as follows: C/P Name Meter # Orig Nom Rev Nom EOG Res. 6296 5,733 2,300 Will you approve revising the volume in Unify down to 2,300? Please advise. Thanks. Bob