Subject: Re: Enron Form 10-K
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:12:00 -0800 (PST)

Thanks Bob.  I'd suggest that you handle the points in the first and second 
paragraphs of your email with Gary Peng, including updating the verbiage as 
you deem appropriate to address the North Dakota, weather, and mileage 
issues.  Please send to Mike Moran and myself the changes you propose 
(including the numbers).  We have already modified the language you reference 
in your third paragraph (per Michele Winckowski), so that's taken care of.  
Mike, you or I should let Rex know that a couple of these additional tweaks 
are coming through this other channel.  One of us can then send them directly 
to Rex if that would be helpful.    DF

   

	From:  Bob Chandler                           03/08/2000 02:48 PM

To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Tim Kissner/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Marsha Eurek/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Harry 
Walters/ET&S/Enron@Enron 

Subject: Re: Enron Form 10-K  

We'll follow-up with Gary Peng (our contact in Corporate Reporting) on the 
numeric data and blanks.  However, for the verbiage for NNG we suggest adding 
North Dakota and deleting Wyoming from the list of states served outside our 
traditional market area.  Our research last year indicated that we no longer 
have any facilities in Wyoming and we do have facilities at Ft. Buford, N. 
Dakota.  This will conform to our Brown Cover footnote 1.  

The note in third paragraph about a warmer than normal winter in Northern's 
service territory in 1999 should probably be updated.  The decline in volumes 
from 1998 to 1999 was mainly due to cooler summer weather (less a/c) in the 
south end of the system.  We obtained this advice yesterday from Gilbert for 
another report requirement.  Also, the reference to approximately 17,000 mile 
pipeline is probably a bit high.  Our 1998 Form 2 reported just under 16,500 
miles.  This number ought to be consistent with whatever is used in the Item 
2 Properties section on page 29 for the aggregate of all Enron pipelines.  (I 
think Corporate obtains a table from the engineers for this disclosure).

The fourth paragraph needs to be deleted or replaced.  It appears to describe 
the Peak Day 2000 project which was old news in 1999.