Message-ID: <31325513.1075841403667.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) From: joe.parks@enron.com To: stuart.zisman@enron.com, chris.meyer@enron.com Subject: RE: Bridgeline Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Parks, Joe X-To: Zisman, Stuart , Meyer, Chris X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \ExMerge - Parks, Joe\Sent Items X-Origin: PARKS-J X-FileName: joe parks 6-26-02.pst Yes, they might be a logical choice. -----Original Message----- From: Zisman, Stuart Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:14 PM To: Meyer, Chris Cc: Parks, Joe Subject: RE: Bridgeline I am not certain that we will ultimately approach Gulf South on the pad gas but it seems to make sense that we talk to them about the storage/transport deal. Stuart -----Original Message----- From: Meyer, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:05 PM To: Parks, Joe; Zisman, Stuart Subject: Bridgeline Since it appears we are going to approach Gulf South about the purchase of pad gas, shouldn't we also gauge their interest in ENA's storage/transport position, including any available molecules? cmm