Message-ID: <5257895.1075858841685.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 20:12:17 -0700 (PDT) From: rick.dietz@enron.com To: shelley.corman@enron.com Subject: FW: Northern v. ONEOK/RE: Oneok Bushton Measurement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Dietz, Rick X-To: Corman, Shelley X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \SCORMAN (Non-Privileged)\Inbox\Oneok X-Origin: Corman-S X-FileName: SCORMAN (Non-Privileged).pst FYI - Please read the following memos. Britt, Rick Craig, Ken Cessac and I= are meeting on Monday at 2:00 to discuss this issue in detail. =20 Rick -----Original Message-----=20 From: Dornan, Dari=20 Sent: Fri 9/7/2001 4:17 PM=20 To: Fossum, Drew; Craig, Rick; Davis, Britt; Cessac, Kenneth; Dietz, Rick= =20 Cc: Darveaux, Mary=20 Subject: FW: Northern v. ONEOK/RE: Oneok Bushton Measurement Could you please keep me and Mary Darveaux in the loop on all this. Thanks= , Dari=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Davis, Britt =20 Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 2:53 PM=20 To: Craig, Rick; Fossum, Drew=20 Cc: 'gharvey@gibbs-bruns.com'; Dietz, Rick; Ringblom, Kathy; Cessac, Ke= nneth; Zikes, Becky; Carrier, Lee=20 Subject: Northern v. ONEOK/RE: Oneok Bushton Measurement=20 Rick,=20 I think the memo is excellent. In order to preserve the legal priv= ileges, I would reference the still-pending Northern v. ONEOK matter in the= "Subject" and restrict the distribution to only those who need to know. My gut is that Sommer is out of the loop b/c ONEOK lost confidence = in him (and Drew, you were right again). Given that development and that y= ou are being sent some proposed revised language, I am going to cancel our = meeting for Monday with you, me, Ken Cessac and Rick. It makes little sense= to me for us to get together until all of us have had a chance to review a= nd digest the language. Many thanks.=20 Britt=20 =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Craig, Rick =20 Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:24 PM=20 To: Fossum, Drew; Davis, Britt=20 Subject: Oneok Bushton Measurement=20 Britt and Drew, here's a memo I've generated based on my conversations with= Oneok this morning. I just thought I'd get you guys' opinion on it before= I expand the distribution to include marketing, operations, reg affairs, e= tc. Is this way more detail than anyone will want? Just wanted your guida= nce since this is my maiden voyage onto this turf. Thanks. =20 After trying most of the week to reach John Sommer at Oneok, I received two= calls this morning, one from Kevin Willt (Bushton Plant) and the other fro= m Steve Winston regarding the Bushton measurment issues. Kevin just wanted= to let me know that he would be their measurement contact for day to day o= perations issues at the Bushton plant and wanted the phone number for Kenne= th Cessac. He said he would be getting with Kenneth about the April/May di= fferences between metered volumes and PTR and would be working with Kenneth= going foward on the day to day measurement issues. =20 Steve Winston wanted to discuss a number of issues. Here's how that discus= sion went. This may be far more detail than anyone wants but since I'm jus= t jumping into this I want to make sure everyone knows what's taking place.= If you want far less detail going foward, please let me know. =20 Steve asked what our plan was. I told him that we were waiting for their t= echnical expert to get with Ken Cessac to look at the April/May differences= (this was based on Ken's call to John Sommer last week) and that I had bee= n trying to get with John Sommer to set up a meeting as a follow-up to his = discussions with Phil to talk about their concerns and need for further cla= rification to the Measurement Agreement. Steve informed me that John Somme= r would no longer be in the picture as a result of recent org changes and t= hat we should work with he and Terry Spencer.=20 He stated that Blaine Bender, their Kansas Operstions Manager, and Kevin Wi= llt, their Bushton plant measurement person are supposed to be getting with= Ken Cessac to look at the April/May differences. I told him that I had ju= st talked to Kevin. They have hired Steve Stark as their technical expert/= consultant to work on this. He stated that the arbitration hearing had "gi= ven us a clean slate" and that the metered volume/PTR comparisons in June, = July and August looked pretty good with both sides of the plant running but= that April and May were a still a concern to them. They're desire is to l= ook into it and "let the science prevail" on these months. I told him that= our position, based on the arbitration decision, was pretty clear, that be= ing that our metered volumes prevail, a comparison is really indifferent. = He did not respond all that well to this statement and said that we both ha= ve to work together on this issue going forward. I told him that we would = certainly work with them to look at the April and May differences and that = if that look/see showed anything we would certainly consider it but reempha= sized that the measurment agreement is the basis for our business decisions= . =20 He then wanted to know what needed to be done from the standpoint of the me= asurement agreement. I told him that we were open to listening to their co= ncerns and if we needed to get together for a meeting, that we could get on= e set up. I asked if he could share some of his thoughts on what they were= thinking. Here's a bullet list of some of the things he brought up. =20 They want to build a relationship with us where both sides openly share the= ir measurement data and information as is relates to metered volumes and PT= R. =20 They have no long term confidence in the ultrasonic measurment without a co= mparison to PTR. He also brought up the issue of two phase flow as tempera= tures begin to cool this fall and condensate starts come up the pipe. They propose that the agreement be redone in such a way that it is more "se= lf correcting" and that compares the metered volumes to PTR. And as long a= s this comparison falls within certain tolerances, then there would be no a= djustments. While he didn't want to commit to a tolerance, he did give a "= Steve Winston opinion" of around 1%. He described the process as a "self c= orrecting" process. Not real clear what that means. =20 He also stated that they would want to define a level of exceedance that wo= uld require a joint investigation of the problem and defined resolution pro= cess. =20 I asked if as a starting point, he would generate a list of their proposed = change provisions and send that to me. He said he was already working on i= t, he called it "Bushton PTR Measurement Settlement" and would get a bullet= list to me in the next couple of days that we could start looking at. We = agreed that we would start from here and then see where it takes us.