Subject: Deal 506549, 506550, 506551
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:03:00 -0800 (PST)

Sorry, I didn't see these deals when I sent the first email.  Kimberly Hundl 
had sent you a note about the contact.  Are these deals like the other two 
deals, and should be confirmed totally separately from the deal #347356.  
Sorry to be so difficult, but we get into trouble everytime we confirm a 
Conoco deal because of the special language that needs to be included on 
deals that are part of #347356, and we never get any notes that tell us 
whether or not it is part of the extension of the original deal.

Thanks!

---------------------- Forwarded by Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT on 01/30/2001 08:58 
AM ---------------------------
   Kate Symes                01/29/2001 06:22 PM

To: Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Deal 507430 and 507417  

Jack Wells is the contact for both - I've added his name to deal #507417. 
According to Sean Crandall, these deals are separate from 347356. That deal 
was a sale, and the deals entered today are all buys. Sean said we're just 
buying back the MW we originally sold them. But I think that's the only 
connection. Let me know if you need more of an explanation from the traders, 
but our take is that these deals are separate.

Thanks,
Kate

   

	From:  Sharen Cason                           01/29/2001 04:05 PM

To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: Deal 507430 and 507417

Are these two deals part of the original Conoco deal # 347356 that they are 
extending or something different?  We need to know because we have to add 
something in the confirmation if they are extensions of the original deal.  
Also, is Jack Wells the contact for both?

Thanks!