Message-ID: <777760.1075853750475.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:40:00 -0800 (PST)
From: colleen.sullivan@enron.com
To: steve.jackson@enron.com, mark.breese@enron.com
Subject: Re: CES Capacity Issues
Cc: chris.germany@enron.com, scott.goodell@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: chris.germany@enron.com, scott.goodell@enron.com
X-From: Colleen Sullivan
X-To: Steve Jackson, Mark Breese
X-cc: Chris Germany, Scott Goodell
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Chris_Germany_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: Germany-C
X-FileName: cgerman.nsf

Per Chris' memo below, it appears to me the question we need to be asking is 
this:
Was this contract number from CES (columbia gulf k#64502) valued in the 
original deal?  Originally Chris was told that this contract was a volumetric 
FT contract, when in fact it is a 100% demand charge contract.  Since it is a 
deal tied to the Devon production, I don't know how (or if) it was valued by 
us.  Theoretically, we could have taken the difference between the max IT 
rate (which is what we get to deduct from the producers' price) and the 
amount of the demand + variable cost of the FT contract and MTM'd $$$.   Did 
we do this?   If we did, then I believe we have a true up issue with CES.  If 
we did not value anything, then I think we are O.K.   

Please advise.







Chris Germany
03/21/2000 02:40 PM
To: Scott Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark 
Breese/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: CES Capacity Issues

I will be emailing all of you with any capacity issues I find.

CGLF k#64502 ;  This is an offshore FTS2 contract that we use with the West 
Cam Devon production.  The demand charge is $1.4381 on a volume of 29,000 dts 
and the commodity is $.0024.  According to my notes; this is a volumetric 
demand contract and the volumetric demand charge in my sheet is $.0648

I am changing this to a regular demand charge contract in Sitara and the 
worksheet.

Comments/Questions?