From: victor.lamadrid@enron.com
To: rita.wynne@enron.com, sherlyn.schumack@enron.com
Cc: clem.cernosek@enron.com, jackie.young@enron.com, meredith.mitchell@enron.com, cynthia.franklin@enron.com, daren.farmer@enron.com, beverly.beaty@enron.com
Date: 2000-12-14 10:37:00+00:00
Subject: Re: HPL discrepancy

Rita, Please help me with this. I have some questions regarding Enerfin.
Why are we re-allocating prior month volumes at Enerfin after we matched your 
original numbers back in October? Can't this be fixed in the actualization 
process?  
The numbers for October between ENA-TETCO and HPL vary a good bit.  Are we 
your only customer at that point and why do we show volumes on days ENA had 
no transactions with HPL?  Can we simply put zero paths in UNIFY and extend 
our existing deals in Sitara with zero volumes and have you guys actualize 
these small volumes to handle this?  We go round and round at this point 
changing volumes two, three or more times. Call me if you have questions..  
Thanks Victor
---------------------- Forwarded by Victor Lamadrid/HOU/ECT on 12/14/2000 
08:50 AM ---------------------------
From: Meredith Mitchell on 12/14/2000 09:28 AM
To: Victor Lamadrid/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: HPL discrepancy  

Victor,

The sitara ticket that we were using for the month of October is #421415.  
TETCO shows that the volumes that HPL was allocated on October 6th and 
October 19th, were 9 dths and 44 dths, respectively.  Those volumes were 
pulled off of our backhaul contract because there was no nomination in 
place.  This is the same problem that we have had over and over with them.  
Also, we just found out on Tuesday, that the OBA did not go into effect until 
December 1, 2000.  We were originally told that they were putting the OBA in 
effect retroactively to November of 1999.  In fact, I thought that HPL had 
made a lot of retroactive changes in the system to adjust for the OBA, do you 
remember that?  HPL told us that Ray Calles at TETCO is the one who decided 
that the OBA would not be effective until December of 2000.  Nobody even 
informed us of this change, I stumbled upon it when researching a November 
issue for Alfonso Trabulsi and Brenda Fletcher.  In addition to all of this, 
I received another email, which I will copy below, asking me to go in for the 
month of October and adjust all of my estimated volumes in Unify to match 
what HPL shows that we were allocated.  I had been going in all month long 
and matching to their numbers, and we were clean for the deadline at the end 
of the month.  I ran the allocation report from TETCO for the month of 
October, and some of HPL's numbers were very different from TETCO's, 
including the two days that I mentioned above.  I sent Jackie Young an email 
back showing her TETCO's numbers and I haven't received a response.  I will 
copy that email below as well, just to catch you up on what's been going on.



Jackie Young
12/12/2000 10:01 AM
To: Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Mitchell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Rita Wynne/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherlyn Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Estimated Volumes for meter 98-0439 for (10/2000)

Cynthia/Meredith:

Please find below the estimates for the above referenced meter for 10/2000.  
Once you're done placing these estimates on TETCO's side, can you please 
apprise me so that volume mgt. can conclude their business?

Thanks
-Jackie-
3-9497

DAY	VOLUMES
1	39647
2	40040
3	39643
4	39809
5	39702
6	18 dec. (str. gas)
7	
8	
9	
10	
11	29162
12	14689
13	40400
14	30599
15	30523
16	30394
17	30369
18	40547
19	88 dec. (str. gas)
20	10126
21	20167
22	20208
23	20502
24	40408
25	45721
26	30978
27	43142
28	9667
29	9536
30	10290
31	




   
	
	
	From:  Meredith Mitchell                           12/12/2000 11:37 AM
	
	

To: Jackie Young/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: October Volumes

Hi Jackie,

I ran a report from TETCO's system to show the volumes that Enron was 
allocated for the month of October, and some of the volumes are very 
different from the volumes that you show.  I copied your numbers below and 
copied TETCO's volumes below that (with the disrepancies in red).  I was 
wondering if you could double check the 3rd, 4th, 11th, 12th, 25th, and 27th 
to see if you had purchases on those days from a counterparty other than 
Enron North America at that meter.  It looks like maybe the volumes that you 
show are the total flow at that meter, but I think that only part of the gas 
was actually allocated to us.  I don't mind putting the allocated volumes in 
path manager, but I'd like to make sure that on the above days, I am only 
putting in the amount that Enron was allocated.   

Also, on the 6th and the 19th TETCO shows exactly half of what you show, 
which I thought was kind of strange.  I am going to have to get TETCO's 
permission to do a retroactive nomination for those two days at the volumes 
you have requested, before I can put anything in Sitara or Unify.  My manager 
is out of the office and will be back tomorrow, but I would like for him to 
double check the deal that we will have to create in Sitara for those two 
days, since we are dealing with a prior month issue. 

 

DAY	VOLUMES
1	39647
2	40040
3	39643
4	39809
5	39702
6	18 dec. (str. gas)
7	
8	
9	
10	
11	29162
12	14689
13	40400
14	30599
15	30523
16	30394
17	30369
18	40547
19	88 dec. (str. gas)
20	10126
21	20167
22	20208
23	20502
24	40408
25	45721
26	30978
27	43142
28	9667
29	9536
30	10290
31	



DAY	VOLUMES
1	39647
2	40040
3	29732
4	24881
5	39702
6	9 dec. (str. gas)
7	
8	
9	
10	
11	19441
12	9793
13	40400
14	30599
15	30523
16	30394
17	30369
18	40547
19	44 dec. (str. gas)
20	10126
21	20167
22	20208
23	20502
24	40408
25	25401
26	30978
27	30099
28	9667
29	9536
30	10290
31