Message-ID: <785172.1075853973728.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:51:00 -0800 (PST) From: daren.farmer@enron.com To: jackie.young@enron.com Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Daren J Farmer X-To: Jackie Young X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Darren_Farmer_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: Farmer-D X-FileName: dfarmer.nsf Jackie, I didn't pay any attention to the date on this message. We should be able to handle this on our side with out involving the East Desk. If the OBA can be used, apply the volume there. If nothing else, we can write it off. D ---------------------- Forwarded by Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT on 11/02/2000 02:47 PM --------------------------- Enron North America Corp. From: Victor Lamadrid 11/01/2000 06:34 PM To: Jackie Young/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clem Cernosek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherlyn Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Mitchell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Beverly Beaty/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO Is this date really June of 1999? Hopefully we're not just finding out about this? I don't think we can even process this request. The East Desk was not up and running on Unify in June of 1999. All of our pathing for June of 1999 was in Autonoms and it's not y2K compatabile. With the volumes involved being so small and the accuracy of the data at Enerfin in question, why don't we let this volume hit the new OBA at Enerfin as a PPA??? I welcome your thoughts. Victor From: Cynthia Franklin @ ENRON 11/01/2000 02:50 PM To: Victor Lamadrid/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO Victor, Can we go this far back? Please advise. Cindy ---------------------- Forwarded by Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron on 11/01/2000 02:54 PM --------------------------- Jackie Young@ECT 11/01/2000 11:25 AM To: Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Mitchell/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Clem Cernosek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherlyn Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO Cynthia/Meredith, Can you please scroll below to my request to Daren regarding 98-0439 and see if you can assist me w/this request? Thanks -Jackie- 3-9497 ---------------------- Forwarded by Jackie Young/HOU/ECT on 11/01/2000 11:23 AM --------------------------- Daren J Farmer 11/01/2000 10:16 AM To: Jackie Young/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO Jackie, Please get with the East Desk on this. If they agree, we can roll the deal. D Jackie Young 11/01/2000 10:03 AM To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Clem Cernosek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherlyn Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO Daren, On the above mentioned dates, there was no nomination at the Enerfin meter. 6/3/99 and 6/8/99 revealed activity for ENA (202K). Can the deal be extended for 6/4 (548 dec.) and 6/9 (40 dec.) to cover this flow so that Volume Management can create an accounting arrangement for these two days? Thanks -Jackie- 3-9497