Here is an email: Attached for your consideration is the draft of a Master Firm Sale Agreement. Upon you review, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions and or comments regarding this matter. Regards,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Sale Agreement
Q: Luanne: I made a mistake on the language that we sent you on MAC. On the last part where it talks about a failure to be rated, my understanding from our discussions is that a MAC would only be triggered if a party's credit support provider failed to be rated by either S&P or Moody's so that if it lost one rating but maintained the other rating a MAC would not be triggered. For this reason the amendment should read ...or its Credit Support Provider shall fail to have a rating from either S&P or Moody's. Please confirm that this is your understanding and sorry for the confusion.
Propose a subject line
A: MAC Language
IN: Iris From the initial work that I Ben and I have done, data availability for the Moody's model is relatively good for European companies. However, there are problems for certain jurisdictions (e.g., the Netherlands) where reporting requirements are low. Also, all newly established entities with no accounts cannot be priced. You may be aware that S&P has a similar model. You can find the description at www.creditmodel.com. We met with S&P earlier this morning and they will give us logins that I will forward to you. I have not looked at the details, but it appears to me that the Moody's model could be more relevant for our purposes as the S&P model is calibrated of companies that S&P has rated, whereas Moody's has actually got data not only retsricted to the firms they rate. Moreover, the S&P threshold USD 100m) is very high. For US counterparties, there may be a problem as private US firms do not need to publish accounts. In any case, quality data is probably one of the most important issues to be resolved going ahead, and this is likely to define what companies we will be able to price and influence model selection. Therefore when you (or someone else) examines potential data sources/vendors please keep Eric Kirkpatrick and Mike Mumford in the loop to ensure full co-ordination Regards

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Data for Moody's RiskCalc
IN: This is an email
I have now had a chance to review the initial language describing the load index that was being discussed in the flurry of e-mails this morning. My preference would be to keep the language as consistent as possible with the language for the pricing index. Given that the actual hourly load is also posted in the "Actual/Forecast" table from which we derive the pricing index (under the column "Actual AIS Demand"), I would propose that we simply reference that same table and the appropriate column and use the arithmetic average of the actual load for all hours. In doing so, the products will be consistent. I also am not sure that we would then need to have a definition of "Load", as the formula for calculating the "Floating Amount" is made certain without the requirement to define "load". My proposed wording is as follows: The Floating Amount shall be the arithmetic average of the hourly Alberta Power Pool load for all hours beginning with HE 0100 (12:00 am) and concluding with HE 2400 (12:00 am) in each Delivery Day as published (in final, not forecast, form) by the Power Pool of Alberta in the table entitled "Actual/Forecast" reported for the applicable Delivery Day in the column for "Actual AIS Demand" and in the row(s) for the applicable hours, on the Power Pool of Alberta internet web page currently located at www.powerpool.ab.ca/Market/Reports/ActualForecastReportServlet. "Delivery Day" means a day during the term of the transaction. I assume that it is most appropriate to use an average of the daily loads as opposed to, say, the actual load for each hour or a monthly average. Let me know what your thoughts are regarding this language. Greg Johnston Senior Counsel Enron Canada Corp.

What is the subject?

OUT: Alberta Power Pool Load Index
QUESTION: Per, What's the deal he's talking about? I also do not think we could put ENA and Enron Metals Ltd. trades under the same master. When you have a mingute give me a ring. Tana
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Swap Document
IN: NEW E-SCRIPT PRINT FUNCTION You can now do print screens on E-Script. To take advantage of this new feature, in the menu file, click on: file, and print screen MAY 2002 IMBALANCE VOLUMES May 2002 Imbalance Volumes are now available to view on-line. They may be viewed in ESCRIPT through the Flowing Gas/Imbalance Window. If you have any questions, please contact me, John Lester at 304/627-3141 or Doug Barr at 304/627-3827. PL- RESTRICTION The work schedule for the pigging of the PL-1 system that was originally scheduled for Monday, June 10, 2002, has been changed to Wednesday June 12, 2002. This notice replaces the previous notice posted on Tuesday June 4th. The implementation of this restriction on Wednesday means that there will be no interruptible transportation capacity or non-PL1 transportation capacity available along the PL-1 system. This restriction will also require that all deliveries at that time on the PL-1 system be made to their primary delivery point. All interruptible and secondary deliveries along the PL-1 system will be reduced to zero effective for the gas day of June 12, 2002, at 10:00 ECT (9:00 CCT). Please give me a call if you have any questions. LATE SHIFT & WEEKEND DUTY JUNE 8 through JUNE 14, 2002 To contact the Transportation Analyst working the late shift or weekend, call 1-800-895-8899 You will have access to Analyst on duty or the E-Script helpline.

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
CUSTOMER UPDATE