Message-ID: <10659617.1075858259742.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:51:00 -0800 (PST)
From: phillip.love@enron.com
To: cathy.sprowls@enron.com
Subject: Re: Latest summary schedules
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Phillip M Love
X-To: Cathy Sprowls
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Phillip_Love_Jun2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: Love-P
X-FileName: plove.nsf

We can take the 265k if you find that we already took the existing variances.
PL



   
	
	
	From:  Cathy Sprowls                           02/16/2001 10:12 AM
	

To: Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Latest summary schedules


Phillip, 

I can reclass this to synthetic storage.  It looks like we may have netted 
the pre-existing synthetic storage valance with some other variances and 
taken it to the desk in the October,November time frame....

---------------------- Forwarded by Cathy Sprowls/HOU/ECT on 02/16/2001 10:10 
AM ---------------------------


Phillip M Love
02/16/2001 09:21 AM
To: Cathy Sprowls/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Latest summary schedules  

Also, in 0006 theres is a synthetic deal identified as NN4016 with NNG for 
$265K, this deal is in sitara 301891 under CPR Pipeline storage. The terms 
match and we should have no variance.  Please ask Gas accounting why we do 
not have a variance on synthetic line - probably Jim Pond.  Thanks.
PL