Anthony, 
 As always, thank you! Sorry for the confusion on the spreadsheet, I know 
they were not duplicate contracts, but that the contract numbers were 
duplicated on the report (meaning multiple counterparty names riding on the 
contract) - - - - sorry for being so vague.
 Did you encounter any problems on the physical side?

Thanks again!!
Cyndie


   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  Anthony Campos @ ECT                           05/16/2001 10:03 AM
	

To: Cyndie Balfour-Flanagan/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Elledge/NA/Enron@Enron, Bridgette Anderson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sharon 
Gonzales/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sylvia A Campos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marlene 
Hilliard/HOU/ECT@ect, Stacey Richardson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda S 
Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bill D Hare/Enron@EnronXGate, 
Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Division/Tradename Audit (part deux)  

Cyndie,

95000243 -  Transammonia, Inc., acting through it division Trammochem (actual 
name on Master); 
  Trammo Gas, a division of Transammonia, Inc. (division allowed to trade per 
Legal);
  Trammo Gas & Petrochemicals Company (division allowed to trade per Legal)
Note:  To your indication of both Trammo Gas records labeled "duplicate 
contract" - are in fact NOT duplicates of the Transammonia Master.  Under no 
circumstances should anyone assume a Financial Global record is a duplicate 
without verifying with Georgi, myself, or Tana Jones and her Financial team.

96043502 -  Cargill Incorporated (actual name on Master);
  Cargill Energy, a division of Cargill, Incorporated (division allowed to 
trade per Legal)

96045659 - Northern Illinois Gas Company d/b/a Nicor Gas Company (actual name 
on Master)
  Nicor Gas Company (name agreed to trade by GCP and Legal)  

96030588 -  Ashland Specialty Chemicals Company (This record is an OnLine 
GTC, name was given per Bob Bowen)

Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
 
Thank You,
Anthony
3-7911




Cyndie Balfour-Flanagan@ENRON
05/15/2001 02:39 PM
To: Susan Elledge/NA/Enron@Enron, Bridgette Anderson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sharon 
Gonzales/NA/Enron@ENRON, Anthony Campos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sylvia A 
Campos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marlene Hilliard/HOU/ECT@ect
cc: Stacey Richardson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S 
Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bill D Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: Division/Tradename Audit (part deux)  

Okay folks. We are starting in on the Division/Tradename audit (our side of 
the equation). As it stands, we are not going to terminate any existing 
contracts with counterparties that are classified as "Division" or 
"Tradename". However, what we are going to do is to verify that the name on 
any existing master contracts matches the name as it exists in the Global 
Counterparty database. So, what we need to do is to view all of the attached 
master contracts (please note that the attached spreadsheet has 3 tabs: 
Physical, Financial & Transportation) and verify how the names are listed on 
the contract & how the counterparty executed the contract. Please email me 
any differences you come across. Remember - - - - watch for name change 
notices, assignment notices, etc while reviewing these contracts.

Anthony:
Since Georgi is out would you mind verifying the Financial contracts (only 
4)? 

Sylvia/Marlene:
I know that in many cases your records won't have master contracts or actual 
paper; however, there is a tab for transportation related contracts & many of 
them are status "executed". Where at all possible, please verify counterparty 
names - - - - primarily, any changes made on the financial or physical side 
can  impact any executed agreements we may have on the transport side (name 
might be one way on a phy contract & another way on a transport contract). 
Then we can at least make sure that changes won't negate anything we have on 
either side.

Please try to get this done as soon as possible. I'd like to have all 
variations by end of the day tomorrow  (Wednesday, 5/16/01). If you are 
working on something else at the moment - - - - please let me know & I'll add 
the contracts to my list to review.

This project is fairly important & we need to wrap it up as soon as we can.

Thank you all!!
Cyndie





Stacey Richardson@ECT
05/15/2001 11:04 AM
To: Cyndie Balfour-Flanagan/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT, Bill D 
Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Division/Tradename Audit (part deux)  

Oh yes, this will be a choice project...  So Credit or Legal hasn't requested 
the number of deals attached to any of those contracts?  I assumed that would 
be part of the original evaluation.  I'd be concerned with which of those 
masters we're trading under now as well as how many deals, volume, etc.  Once 
you hear from Legal and we have an idea of what needs to be done, then let's 
all set up a meeting to discuss within Global Contracts.  We can then follow 
up with Credit and Legal at that point.

Just keep us posted!

Thanks,
SBR



Cyndie Balfour-Flanagan@ENRON
05/15/2001 10:54 AM
To: Stacey Richardson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bill D 
Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: Division/Tradename Audit (part deux)  

We really don't have anything to divide until Legal decides if it is a 
'contract/legal' issue or a Credit Business Process issue. Stacy Dickson was 
checking with Jeff H. to see what their position was on it. 

If it does come down to a "kill" the record scenario - - - the fastest way 
will probably be to do a mail merge format letter from list to create 
termination letters where necessary or mail merger to create amendments 
(adding additional counterparty names to existing master contracts). However, 
I have a feeling it won't be that easy & will come down to a business process 
challenge instead. 

For us, if it comes down to it, I think the big issue will center around GTCs 
(at least with Master contracts you have, or usually have, better 
default/remedies & have a fairly good chance at either a security provision 
or a collateral provision existing in the contract) . We can potentially end 
up with multi layer GTC records where we do not have master contracts. This 
will be the only way to guarantee that new GTCs (especially GTC Spots which 
are 'masterized') from being generated. Even then, it can't be a 100% 
guarantee since I can't see ENA stopping customers & traders from executing 
transactions with CPs other than the 'parent' company - - - - we may have to 
look more closely at the CP set-up info share with GKs (we will have no 
controls to prevent GTCs or Master contracts from being established with CPs 
established as Division, Tradename, ect..... unless we want to commit to 
checking the CP database before we establish a new contract record (master K 
or GTC)). Then, is the GCP group ready to be 100% accountable for how they 
have been & are now classifying the CP records (headquarters, division, 
tradename, ect.) & are the current records 100% accurate. With all the 
turnover (contractors) and the CES scenarios, I'd say it would be impossible 
to have done a 100% double check on all the records (we are even still 
weeding out & cleaning up data in our system). THEN, how do we want to handle 
the records classified in the GCP database as "New - Needs DnB" which are 
records that have not had their status established in the database yet ?????

Either way, much fun lies ahead for this one.
Cyndie



Stacey Richardson@ECT
05/14/2001 10:01 AM
To: Cyndie Balfour-Flanagan/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT, Bill D 
Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Division/Tradename Audit (part deux)  

When Linda gets back in, let's all meet on how to split this up and run the 
Sitara reports.  I'd like to get a total as soon as possible for Credit and 
Legal.  I'm not sure how you want to divide the work, but considering the 
potential exposure with Credit, I think this should be the top of our 
priority list.  However you want to run this project is OK with me, but let's 
get everyone working on this one.

Thanks!
SBR



Cyndie Balfour-Flanagan@ENRON
05/11/2001 03:16 PM
To: Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Stacey Richardson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bill D Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Stacy E 
Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Division/Tradename Audit (part deux)

Okay, Fred re-ran the report to pull all maintenance groups. Instead of 
splitting into two separate reports - - - the attached report has three tabs. 
The first tab shows ALL active Global records for ALL Global Maintenance 
Groups, the second tab shows only 'our' maintenance groups (Hougas, Aruba & 
Financial-North America), and the third tab runs a subtotal on all 
maintenance groups. In total there are 473 global records tied to 
counterparties that have a Division or Tradename classification in Global 
Counterparties & 186 for 'our' maintenance groups. Please let me know if you 
have any additional report 'views' you would like to be included (data sort 
or subtotaled by counterparty, by contract type, ect....).




Fred is running a report against the list we received today for all 
counterparties classified as "Agent" in Global Counterparties. I should be 
able to have this report to you all on Tuesday as I will be out of the office 
on Monday.