Here is an email: There may be some press today about Enron's involvement in the Nepal hydro project. The government of Nepal is hopeful that we will pursue it, but we are not going to. Kelly's response on press inquiries will be that we are not pursuing the project. Kelly will also be getting in touch with David Howe. I just wanted to keep you guys posted in case you are getting questions.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Nepal
Q: Torrey, Rob Benson is currently trading two general power regions (PJM and New York) under one EOL ID. He manages one stack manager of which all deals are mapped to his EPMI-LT-PJM book. He would like to create an additional stack manager so that he can divide the two regions into their own stack and manage them on separate screens. All of the deals would continue to go into the LT-PJM book. Let me know if this would be doable and what I need to do on my side to help out. Thanks!
Propose a subject line
A: Multiple Stack Manager
IN: Do you know if we have actually collected on the imbalance settlement payments from Koch and LIG? Also, are we in agreement with El Paso on the Stingray imbalance volume (11,973 mmbtu due Stingray)? I have a statement from El Paso showing this volume. They want us to sign and return the volume statement. Thanks,

Generate a subject line.

OUT: LRC imbalances
IN: This is an email
We'd like to welcome Laura Anello, the newest member of our Carr NY Energy team. With over 10 years experience in the futures energy business, Laura's primary focus has been on the risk management side for the mid-continent products and crude oil market. Her fundamental background as well as her experience with a varied client base will make her an integral part of our energy team. Laura will also produce our Carr Energy fundamental comment on a daily basis. Any questions or comments for Laura, please call at 212 453 6300

What is the subject?

OUT: New Team Member of Carr Energy
QUESTION: MWHRs = 4 Years and 1 quarter Flat so that equals approximately 37,250 Hours The difference between 102 (the new amount) and 94.5 (the old average flat amount) = 7.5 MW * 37,250 HRs = 279,375 MWhrs I was under the impression that a 100 MW flat amount would equal $3 million value (a $16 difference between market and $21.50). This would indicate the 102 equals a $4,100,000 valuation. As to the discount in value due to the flexibility and delivery point I am looking to you for leadership. If my assumptions are wrong then let me know. Stewart
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Valuation Overview
IN: Here is the current rev of the EECC "standard" form which I am reviewing/massaging in connection with the 97 10 exercise. It includes the exhibits, where I think you can find something useful. If this doesn't help, please let me know and I will check elsewhere. Thanks,

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Form Contract, Rev Minus 1