Thought you might want to see this.


---------------------- Forwarded by Edward Terry/HOU/ECT on 02/21/2001 09:19 
AM ---------------------------
From: Matt Pena/ENRON@enronXgate on 02/21/2001 09:11 AM
To: Edward Terry/HOU/ECT@ECT, George F Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patti 
Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine L Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert 
Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Victor Lamadrid/HOU/ECT@ECT, Beverly Beaty/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Donna Greif/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Pinion/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Chris Schomer/ENRON@enronXgate, Brian Ripley/ENRON@enronXgate, Bob M 
Hall/NA/Enron@Enron, Bryce Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: EOL Deal Ids In Path Manager

As you're aware, we're having to bridge Houston Street ids into Unify from 
Sitara.  

We are being asked, as a requirement, to not display the EOL id on statements 
that are identified as "Broker EOL trade" deals originating from EOL.  We 
have two options to accomodate this requirement:

Option 1 is to have the modify the bridge code to not bridge over the EOL 
deal id if the deal is a "Broker EOL trade"  deal.  One of the drawbacks of 
this option is that you won't be able to referenence the EOL id on the Path 
Manager for these related deals.  All other deals will have the EOL deal id, 
if applicable.  The EOL id would not show up on the statements because it 
wouldn't be populated.

Option 2 is to modify several areas of code in the Settlements area which may 
be more time consuming.  The obvious code change would be in the statement 
generation area as well as other report type information.  

Option 2 allows you the greatest flexibility while Option 1 may be quicker to 
implement.  

Please pass this along to others in your group and get feedback.  Please 
share your thoughts....
I've attached an email explaining the Broker EOL trades.  This is not to be 
confused with Broker deals done at a given point with not transportation.  
These will continue to come across as you'd normally expect.

Any questions, please ask...

Thanks!