Message-ID: <9900644.1075842558673.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:22:00 -0800 (PST) From: drew.fossum@enron.com To: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com Subject: Re: PGT-NW expansion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Drew Fossum X-To: Jeffery Fawcett X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf Why would PGT do that???? If there was that much demand, you'd think they would have been able to extract a neg. rate deal for something north of max for a shorter term. Maybe that shipper demanded the recourse rate. Weird. By the way--good memo to Shelley on Red Rock. df From: Jeffery Fawcett/ENRON@enronxgate on 02/22/2001 03:49 PM To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Danny McCarty/LON/ECT@Enron, Lorna Brennan/ENRON@enronXgate, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ENRON@enronXgate, Lorraine Lindberg/Enron@enronXgate, TK Lohman/ENRON@enronxgate, Michelle Lokay/ENRON@enronXgate, Kimberly Watson/ENRON@enronXgate cc: Subject: PGT-NW expansion Rumor on the street is that the entire 200 MMcf/d of capacity in the PGT-NW expansion went to one shipper who offered max. rates for 35 years.