
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:40:00 -0800 (PST)
From: colleen.sullivan@enron.com
To: steve.jackson@enron.com, mark.breese@enron.com
Subject: Re: CES Capacity Issues
Cc: chris.germany@enron.com, scott.goodell@enron.com
Bcc: chris.germany@enron.com, scott.goodell@enron.com

Per Chris' memo below, it appears to me the question we need to be asking is
this:
Was this contract number from CES (columbia gulf k#64502) valued in the
original deal?  Originally Chris was told that this contract was a volumetric
FT contract, when in fact it is a 100% demand charge contract.  Since it is a
deal tied to the Devon production, I don't know how (or if) it was valued by
us.  Theoretically, we could have taken the difference between the max IT
rate (which is what we get to deduct from the producers' price) and the
amount of the demand + variable cost of the FT contract and MTM'd $$$.   Did
we do this?   If we did, then I believe we have a true up issue with CES.  If
we did not value anything, then I think we are O.K.

Please advise.







