IN: Please pass this onto the individuals in your groups: Tomorrow's simulation and Friday's desk to desk trading will provide an excellent opportunity for us to double check the online deals in tagg and sitara. Please pay special attention to these deals and let me know of any bridging issues. Even though we have been testing and having various people check the deals in the underlying systems, I am afraid of any logic that may be hardcoded in the bridge. Notify me immediately of any deals that are bridging incorrectly and I will try to resolve as soon as possible. I will also be watching the bridge to research any failed deals. Thanks for your help. Let's hope for a smooth transition! Dawn 3-9353

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Bridge logic

IN: Project OZ The deal team is proceeding post-haste to draft a definitive term sheet. Bjorn - you're correct - term is now 8 years likely to be 10 $40 million working capital facility - advance rate will exceed market - i.e. a portion of this is really equity crack spreads - will be widened (still fine tuning) Minimum investment case - Morgan Stanley bridge, refinery cash flow to supply capex for Tier 2 upgrades, current volumes After closing, to continue investigating expansion (max capex case) with [option] to hedge larger volumes ( ?- what if we don't agree with expansion plans) RAC draft DASH with deal team's comments expected back this afternoon - will circulate promised model by EOD tomorrow anticipate that deal team will try to get approval delegation at the next BOD meeting (about ten days to get thru RAC process)

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Update from the Wizard

IN: Lines 6, 7, & 8 are sales to CES at the citygate, deals 250126 and 250131. The schedulers wanted 2 deal tickets for tracking purposes. The pricing should be the same. I did make a teeny little error, line 7 should be prices at $3.4228 and line 8 should be priced at $3.4428.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: CES - manual invoice for May 2000

IN: Take a look at this. Note that this does not address capacity release issues. I think that might be too much for this letter. I think we should take that up separately. Probably, an ad hoc basis is best to start with. For example, I think we should work with Marc of FPU on an individual basis and see what happens. Then we would be able to feel more confident on whether to call a meeting on this or not.

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
DVC Letter