Bill, any delays on this project are NOT from the env. matrix.  I received 
the matrix from the team sometime last week (tuesday -thursday) when I was 
out of town on business.  When I came back on friday, I completed the matrix 
and sent it back to the team.  Any delays on this issue are from the team, 
not from me.  As I remember the project, it involved work on the right of way 
and therefore was covered by the blankets we have for SHPO and F&W.  There 
were no project delays in terms of permits or approvals...... 




William.Kendrick.enronXgate@enron.com on 05/20/2001 08:12:13 AM
To: Larry.Campbell@enron.com
cc:  

Subject: FW: Mewborne - Quercho Bone Springs Unit - Sec 23-18S-32E



Larry--

Any thoughts on this?  Please respond to me only.

Thanks, Bill
 -----Original Message-----
From:     Rice, Randy
Sent:     Wednesday, May 16, 2001 4:09 PM
To:       Kendrick, William; Clark, Scott
Subject:  FW: Mewborne - Quercho Bone Springs Unit - Sec 23-18S-32E

We continue to have some "attitude" from this person in scheduling for
EOTT. I thought you may be able to work with Scott and is people on a
process to make this better.
R2

 -----Original Message-----
From:     Clark, Scott
Sent:     Wednesday, May 16, 2001 3:41 PM
To:       Rice, Randy
Subject:  Mewborne - Quercho Bone Springs Unit - Sec 23-18S-32E


---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Clark/OTS/Enron on 05/16/2001
03:40 PM ---------------------------

(Embedded image moved to file: pic00041.pcx)
Lance Nash @ EOTT on 05/15/2001 10:48:39 AM

To:   Wade Jordan/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Scott Clark/OTS/Enron@ENRON,
      ronny.davenport@enron.com@Eott
cc:

Subject:  Mewborne - Quercho Bone Springs Unit - Sec 23-18S-32E

Wade - As you're probably aware of by now, on April 2nd, Carl Eby with
Phillips called inquiring about a possible tie-in of the subject unit to
our "Young Deep" pipeline system we acquired from Koch.  A question arose
as to whether or not a west to east spur existed off the north/south
mainline which would be near the unit.  It was initially conveyed to me
that ETS would take a backhoe out to the mainline to make this
determination.  I have since learned that this has been delayed due to the
need for an "environmental matrix", whatever that may be.  The roads to
this unit are in extremely poor condition, and the operator would like to
pipeline connect if possible.  Production is represented at 300 bpd.

A couple of issues:

1)  Could someone explain to me the process involved in an "env. matrix",
and why it take 2 months to determine if we have a pipeline in the ground?
Is someone with ETS in Houston delaying this, if so, who is the responsible
party?
2)  Tariff on this system (NMSCC #17) is 50 cents/bbl at this time, plus
PLA.  From the maps I have, it appears this system consists of around 10 to
12 miles of gathering and mainline.  Current production on the system is
around 115 bpd of WTI, or $23,000/yr monetized.  The pipe in the ground is
fairly new from what I've been told by my contact at Koch.  If we can
manage to tie this well in, revenue would be raised an additional
$60,000/year at current tariff rates.  What costs are currently associated
with this system?  A decision needs to be made on the economic feasibility
of keeping it operable given the current tariff rates and current/proposed
throughput, or the rates needed to keep the system viable.

Bottom line, Phillips and the producer need an answer, one way or the
other, so they can get on with the business of safely transporting this
crude oil.  EOTT Pipeline needs an answer, one way or the other, so we can
decide how to best manage this system.

Any assistance in moving this forward and allowing EOTT to maintain some
image of credibility would be appreciated.  I would also like to pass along
my appreciation of Rick Cribbs and the information he has been able to
provide thusfar.

Lance Nash
Commercial Manager
EOTT Energy Pipeline L.P.
(713) 993-5296
lance.nash@eott.com


 - pic00041.pcx