Message-ID: <28109742.1075844499351.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mary.cook@enron.com
To: stephanie.panus@enron.com
Subject: Re: BOM
Cc: sara.shackleton@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: sara.shackleton@enron.com
X-From: Mary Cook
X-To: Stephanie Panus
X-cc: Sara Shackleton
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

Sara, what do you want to do re this?  Mary



	Stephanie Panus@ENRON
	08/22/2000 09:03 AM
		
		 To: Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: BOM

I don't see anything in the file that indicates why the Master with CES was 
not terminated, only that it will be inactive.



MARY COOK@ECT
08/22/2000 08:29 AM
To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephanie Panus/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: BOM

Stephanie,  double check.  It appears the CES master and transactions were 
assigned to ENA and the transactions assigned over to the ENA BOM Master 
Agreement that we already had we BOM.  For some reason the parties then 
agreed not to terminate the old CES master, but leave it in place inactive.  
Normally we would terminate the CES master when we have one in place.  
Stephanie, is there anything in the file indicating why it was not so 
terminated?  Did BOM want to keep it in place until the prior trans were 
expired for a belt and suspender?  Please advise.  Mary