Message-ID: <32981496.1075854007536.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:05:00 -0700 (PDT) From: robert.cotten@enron.com To: daren.farmer@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: Robert Cotten X-To: Daren J Farmer X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Darren_Farmer_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: Farmer-D X-FileName: dfarmer.nsf Daren, FYI. Per our discussion, the following nominations were revised on EOG Resources: Meter # Orig Nom Rev Nom Deal # 5263 4,755 5,820 126355 6067 3,726 4,600 126281 6748 2,005 3,300 126360 6742 4,743 10,120 126365 6296 5,733 2,300 126281 Bob Daren J Farmer 05/31/2000 05:51 PM To: Robert Cotten/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Revised Nomination - June, 2000 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