Subject: RE: ECC - Riskmantra counterparties
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:59:01 -0800 (PST)

Dawn,

At this stage, I haven't heard any indications we wouldn't continue to operate this way.  

One important thing here is that this 2 leg logic was never applied to the US counterparties we deal with - so we end up having to book a second leg on any deals we do with a Houston counterparty in EOL.  Since this was obviously considered to be worth doing for the US, I don't see why we wouldn't do it for Canada too - it would be a significant time saver.

Brian

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kenne, Dawn C.  
Sent:	Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:46 PM
To:	Keiser, Kam; Gillis, Brian; Reeves, Kathy
Cc:	Lozano, Melba; Sweitzer, Tara; Denny, Jennifer; Meredith, Kevin
Subject:	ECC - Riskmantra counterparties

Kam, Kathy and Brian,

Concerning the ECC - Riskmantra logic that EOL has in place to convert the transactions that are done with counterparties with ECC master agreements...are we going to continue this way of booking (2 legs)?  If so, can you review the list of counterparties that follows the "2-leg" logic and let me know if there need to be any additions or deletions?

Thanks,
Dawn

 << File: ECC counterparties.xls >>