Robin: We use two firms for U.S. derivatives advice - both in New York and both highly recommended: David Mitchell of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (212)504-6285 Ken Raisler of Sullivan & Cromwell (212)558-4675 David we use for contract issues - what should our forms look like under various conditions, etc. and Ken, who is a former General Counsel of the CFTC, we use for policy questions, political (lobbying) and e-commerce issues. Please feel free to use my name when contacting either of them. If neither of these is exactly what you are looking for, let me know and I can put you in touch with others. Mark
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Derivatives Counsel
See attached for NNG's draft notes from the 08/29/01 meeting, please review and feel free to suggest changes. Please forward to anyone I may have missed on the distribution list. John Buchanan
Answer: NNG/Oneok Meeting Notes
Here is an email: TP2 is buying Spinnaker gas (deal 632998) from Gulf 1 at Zone 2 IF (deal 657407). TP2 is selling the gas back to Gulf1 at IF plus variable cost (deal 657409) at St 45. It is my understanding that the transport commodity rate for gas from this well is $.02 plus fuel. SO, I just changed the price on deal 657409 from Z2 IF + .09 to Z2 IF + .045. We should see about $68,000.00 move from TP2 to Gulf 1.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Spinnaker
Q: Mark: Mark Haedicke and Lance Schuler asked me and Pete del Vecchio to draft a letter to Dynegy to clarify certain of the covenants and to ask for their consent to certain possible transactions. We would like your input on what we ask for and how we go about asking. I understand Lance Schuler spoke with you today regarding having a telephone conference tomorrow on this. Please send me an e-mail or leave me a voice mail (713 345-1549) as to what time is convenient for you. I'm also sending this to you by fax.
Propose a subject line
A: Dynegy Covenant Issues
IN: Dear Dan: Sorry not to send the check last week as promised. It seems that my mom landed in a hospital in England and I had to dash out of town. Now, eight days later, I am just catching up. Tomorrow (July 19) I will send the check to you by Federal Express for Friday delivery together with my request for a response from you to the "birthday boy". I did receive your newsletter - thanks very much. Regards. Sara

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Shackleton order
IN: This is an email
Now that the celebrating has died down, lets decide whether to seek rehearing or clarification of the order. If there is anything in it that disadvantages us, we should consider rehearing, particularly since it is a nearly certain that our friends at SoCal will file a nasty one. (It might be good for Steve H. or Bill or whoever has the best relationship with SoCal to make a high level courtesy call to extend the olive branch and tell them that we'll work with them to minimize their concerns blah blah blah. At minimum, we'll probably learn if they do intend to seek rehearing) I see two things that may be worth seeking rehearing on: 1. The requirement that we disclose our discount agreements in 15 days. FERC really punted this issue. They say that "since the expansion capacity is fully subscribed we see no reason why Transwestern should not publicly disclose the agreements. . . . " This is the first time I've heard of any rule that if your project is fully subscribed you therefore lose your right to confidential treatment of sensitive pricing info. At minimum, we could argue that the requirement is arbitrary and capricious because FERC didn't even mention its normal regulations and procedures governing filing of discount reports. It just cited the certificate regulation that requires an applicant to "file" its rate information with the Commission (which we did) and ignores the regulation (Sec. 284.7(c)(6)) that doesn't require a pipeline to publicly disclose its discounts until 15 days after the close of the billing period to which the discount pertained. The commercial people need to decide if we care about this issue--i.e., how upset will the customers

What is the subject?

OUT:
Gallup Order: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE