Good thinking and good hustle on your part Craig, as usual.  Do we know what 
the system problems were and if they were on their end or ours?  I agree that 
timetable issues in general and the approval process for Demarc deals, in 
particular, need to be reviewed when we get together on contract process 
issues.    


   
	
	
	From:  Craig Buehler                           02/02/2001 12:20 PM
	

To: Kent Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Danny McCarty/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Dave 
Neubauer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jo Williams/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeff 
Nielsen/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Karen Brostad/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rick 
Dietz/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Linda Trevino/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: Routing request on EOL deal


This is a long story...

Oneok requested a deal for Feb. 3-28, 10,000/d from MidCon Pool to Demarc @ 
$.03/d Demand + Min. Commodity (Standard Language terms plus all Field Area 
points available as alternates at the discounted rate).  Originally, this 
deal was going to be entered into via EOL.  I input the deal's terms into CMS 
(contract system) under this assumption.  Oneok was a first-time EOL 
participant and they had system problems when attempting to accept the EOL 
posting.  With the "on-time" nom deadline fast approaching, I decided to 
switch the deal over to a standard TFX agreement.  Since EOL deals are 
"pre-approved,"  the deal had already been  manually routed (at my request) 
so it could be activated per our standard EOL process.  This deal was 
required to route due to the Demarc DP (all other terms were standard and 
within the Marketer's approval level).  At the point I decided to switch the 
deal over to a TFX deal from an EOL deal, it was impossible to re-route for 
approval .  I advised Danny and Drew of the change and they signed off on the 
CAF form.  I then called Ranelle and advised her of the switch from EOL to 
TFX but she was not given time to review the agreement.  The deal was then 
faxed to the Shipper, signed, returned, activated and nominated prior to 
11:30am.  The deal got done but not within our standard procedures.   The 
window between a deal being struck and on time noms (a factor in the deal's 
value) is constantly shrinking, leaving no room for error.   Hopefully the 
Contract Process meeting scheduled for next week will address some of these 
issues.  If anyone has additional questions, I'll try and answer them.

Craig

==============================================================================
====================

	Karen Brostad
	02/02/2001 11:42 AM
	
To: Craig Buehler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: Routing request on EOL deal

Craig:  Would you please respond to Mary Kay on what transpired on this deal 
since I did the approvals? Thanks

Karen
==============================================================================
====================
	
	
	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           02/02/2001 11:10 AM
	

To: Karen Brostad/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: Routing request on EOL deal  

What was the EOL posting for, besides 10,000?   term, rate etc?  MK

==============================================================================
====================


	Karen Brostad
	02/02/2001 11:01 AM
	
To: Kent Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Danny McCarty/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Dave 
Neubauer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Craig Buehler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Linda Trevino/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rick 
Dietz/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Routing request on EOL deal

There was an EOL deal this morning for Oneok Field Services, req 39940, for 
10,000; Midcontinent Pool to Demarc that because of demarc, requires 
approvals through President level.

Due to the nature of the EOL deals, I routed the request then approved on 
your behalf immediately thereafter.

Please disregard your email notice to approve request 39940.  Should you have 
further questions, please advise.


Karen Brostad
x 37312