Message-ID: <24491675.1075852630161.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: jeff.andrews@enron.com
To: a..shankman@enron.com, l..nowlan@enron.com
Subject: API vs. DOE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Andrews, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JANDREW2>
X-To: Shankman, Jeffrey A. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jshankm>, Nowlan Jr., John L. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jnowlan>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \JSHANKM (Non-Privileged)\Deleted Items
X-Origin: Skilling-J
X-FileName: JSKILLIN (Non-Privileged).pst

Gentlemen,
 
As a follow-up to the question regarding the reliability of DOE vs API numbers:
 
According to our contacts at the API, API checks the relability of their numbers against the DOE.  Specifically with their import numbers, API claims that their import assessment captures 95% of all imports.  The imports they use as their benchmark for this statistic are the DOEs.
 
Matt Anderson will be working on an analysis today.
 
Jeff