Message-ID: <24777240.1075851772555.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:48:00 -0800 (PST)
From: dawn.kenne@enron.com
To: jason.wolfe@enron.com
Subject: Counterparties w/ Master Agreements with ECC
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Dawn C Kenne
X-To: Jason Wolfe
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Jason_Wolfe_Nov2001\Notes Folders\Saved-12
X-Origin: WOLFE-J
X-FileName: jwolfe.nsf

FYI....
---------------------- Forwarded by Dawn C Kenne/HOU/ECT on 12/13/2000 09:50 
AM ---------------------------


Dawn C Kenne
12/12/2000 10:00 AM
To: Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Swaim/HOU/ECT@ECT, Torrey 
Moorer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tara Sweitzer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jennifer deBoisblanc Denny/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kam Keiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darron C 
Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT, William Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Counterparties w/ Master Agreements with ECC

I have received an updated list of the counterparties that have Master 
Agreements with ECC.  There are now about 40 counterparties that fall under 
this category.  What seems to be happening is that these counterparties are 
hitting on US gas products on EOL and are not bridging into Tagg correctly.  
Currently, they are bridging as one leg between ENA and the counterparty.  
The problem arises during settlement because ENA cannot settle with these 
counterparties, only ECC can.  An example of what Risk is doing to the 
products after bridging is Tagg#Q79131 / EOL #555401.

RISK:  We need risk to verify that anytime, without exception, all companies 
with Master Agreements with ECC that hit a US product must be booked as two 
legs:  leg one booked between ECC and the counterparty with risk assignment 
of FT-US/CAND-ERMS; leg two flipping the risk out of FT-US/CAND-ERMS to the 
appropriate risk book.  Also, risk needs to verify that this is only for 
Financial Swaps and not Physical deals.  

IT:  It is my understanding that a few counterparties are set up to be booked 
correctly (with two legs).  The list is now up to 40 counterparties and will 
most likely be updated on a consistent basis.  Is this something that Tagg 
Maintenance can handle?  Guidelines need to be set up for Risk/Global to 
instruct IT when new Master Agreements are created with counterparties so 
logic can be adjusted accordingly.

Does a meeting need to be set up to elaborate on these issues?  Are there any 
further issues that need to be addressed concerning ECC Master Agreements?    
(i.e. What about when a counterparty with ECC Master Agreement hits a 
Canadian product out of the Houston office?)  
Please respond with your thoughts on this subject.

Thank you,
Dawn
3-9353