Message-ID: <8606189.1075854019160.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:28:00 -0800 (PST) From: karie.hastings@enron.com To: julie.meyers@enron.com Subject: Re: Storage Deal 47472 and 60747 Cc: daren.farmer@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: daren.farmer@enron.com X-From: Karie Hastings X-To: Julie Meyers X-cc: Daren J Farmer X-bcc: X-Folder: \Darren_Farmer_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: Farmer-D X-FileName: dfarmer.nsf Julie: Can you cut off deal 47472 going forward? I am forwarding the message from Tommy Yanowski. Let me know if this is a problem. Thanks, Karie (36759) ---------------------- Forwarded by Karie Hastings/HOU/ECT on 03/27/2000 09:25 AM --------------------------- Enron Technology From: Tommy J Yanowski 03/27/2000 08:45 AM To: Karie Hastings/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Julie Meyers/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Storage Deal 47472 and 60747 Karie: Deal number 60747 should be the good deal. Deal number 60747 is an interruptible storage deal and contract 96016959 is an interruptible contract. Storage deal 47472 is a firm storage deal. Since it doesn't agree with the firmness of the contract, I would probably cut off that deal going forward. - Tommy KARIE HASTINGS 03/23/2000 05:35 PM To: Tommy J Yanowski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Julie Meyers/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Storage Deal 47472 and 60747 Tommy: There are two Storage deals that are using the same contract number. Julie Meyers believes that deal 47472 is the correct deal, but wants to check with you first since you put in deal 60747. Let me know when you look at them if we need to cut off or kill deal 60747. Thanks, Karie (36759) Deal Contract 47472 96016959 60747 96046959