We have a sale to Tractebel on CGAS with a price discrepancy. This was a deal we took over from CES wholesale. Here are the terms per the confirm Tractebel faxed us. Term: 11/1/1999 - 10/31/2000 Type: EFP Differential: $.235 Point: Tco Pool Trans Date: 5/6/1999 Sitara Deals: 158716/227890 the price in sitara is Tco Index. Elizabeth faxed the confirm to me. I will gladly give this to David. Please take a look and let Elizabeth know which price should be in Sitara. Thanks.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: CES-Tractebel deal
Lippman Consulting, Inc. is pleased to announce that it has just completed the 2nd quarterly of 2001 gas production report for the state of California. This report contains text and graphs depicting various historical statistics. The total California production volumes are separated by associated and non-associated volumes. The report also separates production by state and federal areas as well as onshore and offshore volumes. For the onshore volumes, we detail the production down to the district level while for the offshore volumes, we detail those down to the field level. In addition to showing historical production volumes in various categories, the report also provides the reader with monthly net gas storage injection and withdrawal volumes along with the total gas volumes in storage for the state. Working gas as well as cushion gas levels are also reported. California is a major consuming district and the level of production contained within the state has a direct bearing on the amount of gas imports that will be needed to satisfy demand.
Answer: CALIFORNIA 2nd QUARTER PRODUCTION REPORT
Here is an email: Hi there. This is the letter Hancock is willing to give us in exchange for Hancock getting a security interest in the escrow account. Any comments? Kay
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Pegasus - ENA Entitlement Letter
Q: We know how interested all of you are in the Retention & Severance Plan, so we want to update you on its status. As many of you know, we have been working with members of the Creditors' Committee and their consultants since December to formulate a Retention & Severance Plan, and we formally presented the plan to the committee on Friday, February 22. We had hoped the committee would approve the plan quickly so that we could file it with the bankruptcy court and share the details of the plan with you before the end of the month. We know that many of you have career options outside of Enron and that the Retention & Severance Plan may impact your decision to stay or to leave. We sincerely regret to inform you that approval of the plan for debtor companies is delayed. We're learning that, in bankruptcy, most things don't move as quickly as we are accustomed. The committee outlined some concerns related to our proposed plan, but we are confident we will be able to reach agreement with the creditors on those concerns. The Creditors' Committee fully supports the implementation of a Retention & Severance Plan. Such plans align the company's objectives with the goals of the creditors and are fairly standard in bankruptcy. These plans are designed as a way to preserve and maximize value for the estate. The Creditors' Committee also understands that time is of the essence for getting a plan in place and has established a subcommittee to expedite their review and approval process. To that end, we are meeting regularly with the subcommittee. We intend to work hand-in-hand with them to reach agreement on an acceptable plan as quickly as possible. This is currently our top priority, bar none! When we filed for bankruptcy, we did not fully grasp how tedious the process of developing an acceptable plan would be. Unfortunately, that lack of understanding led management to set unrealistic expectations about how quickly a plan might be in place. We now know that it takes significant time, resources and effort to understand, identify and gather the massive volume of required details, to formulate that information into a reasonable program, and to prepare a rationale and compelling presentation. The process mirrors the most time-intensive business presentation or deal negotiation with which Enron has been involved. That serves only as an explanation - it is not intended as an excuse. We remain committed to working with the Creditors' Committee until we can reach agreement on a plan. We anticipate that negotiation process will take another week or so, and have targeted the week of March 11 to file a motion to adopt a plan with the bankruptcy court. We will continue to hold retention and severance as our number one priority until a plan is approved by the bankruptcy court. With respect to non-debtor companies, or those companies not in bankruptcy, new severance plans are being approved and will be rolled out to employees in those companies in the very near future. In the meantime, we have been working to finalize merit increases and promotions across the entire organization and plan to communicate those to employees next week. And of course, we will update you on retention and severance as soon as possible.
Propose a subject line
A: Update on Retention & Severance Plan
IN: Dear Enron Employees: I'm sorry to report that a third Enron employee has died in the hospital as a result of injuries from yesterday's explosion and fire at Teesside Power Station. To lose another employee is a devastating blow to all of us. A fourth employee remains in the hospital and is in stable condition. Please keep these employees and their families in your thoughts and prayers. We will release their names as soon as all family members and relatives have been notified. I'm in the U.K. now and will be visiting with the employees and families who've been affected by this tragic accident. I will also visit the site and will meet with authorities in order to determine the cause of the explosion. I will keep you posted on any new developments.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Teesside Update
IN: This is an email
Tracy: Sorry to bother you with this one again - in 1999 and 2000, what were the revenues and costs associated with the base gas sales - the footnote disclosure indicates $53 million and $34 million in sales but not the cost. In addition, going forward, how much of the 2001 and 2002 TG&S expense is solely related to this transaction (i.e. expenses that would not be incurred but for this transaction)? My question may be a bit confusing - call me if I am totally off base!

What is the subject?

OUT:
More base gas questions