I will serve as a representative to the Associates PRC meeting that will take place on July 19. As a PRC rep, I have been assigned the Associates to represent in the meeting as indicated on the attachment. The Associates Program has provided me with your name as the PRC supervisor of the associate as listed. Please provide me with the following by Friday, July 14: Associate's accomplishments for the first half of 2000 (prepared by the associate or summarized by you) Description of associate's current responsibilities/assignment (and any additional rotational assignments during this first six months of the year) Pre-ranking of the associate from your business unit PRC , or your suggestion on ranking if no business unit PRC process has been completed (Superior, Excellent, Strong, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Issues) Any other information that you believe will be helpful in accurately representing the associate in the PRC process Recommendation for promotion, if any I will receive a copy of the Consolidated Supervisor Feedback from the PEP system through the Associates Program. I will be on vacation until Monday, July 17. My assistant, Patti Thompson, will be contacting you next week to ask if you would like to meet with me for a few minutes on Monday or Tuesday, July 17 and 18 (or phone call) to discuss your associate and his/her performance in more detail. Thanks for your attention to this. If you are not the appropriate PRC supervisor for the associate listed on the attachment, please reply by e:mail as soon as possible and my assistant will research where I should go next for this input.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Associate PRC - Input Needed
Beginning 10/1/2001, TMS stopped excluding city gates locations from the allocation, thereby they would be subject to allocation, where they were not before, this was requested by John Buchanan. Unfortunately or fortunately, NNG customers do not nominate a large portion of their gas to theses city gate locations, rather they nominate to the zone locations, so there is a 99.9% probability, that these city gates would never have to be allocated any way. Currently in TMS we exclude the zone nomination locations (OPS type) from the allocation process. Therefore my question is, since we wanted to include the city gates in the allocation process do we also want to include the zone delivery locations in the allocation process? Bewlow is a list of OPS type points. (234 3026 3041 3042 3044 3047 3049 3050 3051 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3071 3072 3075 3076 3077 3079 3080 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3091 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3119 3120 3122 3123 3124 3126 3184 3363 3438 4816 55935 57178 59043 59271 60226 60228 60230 61427 61704 62818 62819 62820 62821 62862 62906 62956 62957 71488) These points are not eligible for allocations, with the exception of 234 (Nigas).
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Market Point Allocations
I have scheduled a meeting for October 7th from 8:30 to 2:30 in room 3321 to recommence the project we began in January to review the existing Houston-based financial, gas and power trading forms. All of you should have received a black binder labelled "Analysis of ECT's Finacial, Power, Gas Forms" which contains all of the long and short forms used for trading (as such forms existed in January 1999), as well as my summary comparison as to how each of the forms handles certain legal issues (eg, termination, cover, assignement, confidentiality ....). If you did not receive or cannot locate this binder, let me know and I will forward to you another copy. This analysis was done in January. I am aware that some of the forms may have changed since then but have not undertaken to "update" the memo as we will be able to discuss such changes at the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to review how each of the Houston-based trading forms has been structured and to note where there are differences. The ultimate goal is to determine what Enron's "model" trading provisions should be and to determine a consistent approach unless there is a justified rational for treating the commodities in a different manner. With this in mind, I would hope to be able to create a "modular type" contract whereby each legal issue would have a recommended approach, evidenced by language that will be approved by the group. By way of example, Enron's gas contract prohibits assignement without consent, which consent can be withheld for any reason. The financial form provides that a party can not unreasonably withhold its consent. At this meeting we would discuss what the preferred approach is and then begin the process of drafting appropriate language, which language would be approved at a seperate meeting. This "modular assignment section" could then be dropped into all trading forms unless differences were required due to the commodity/product involved. You will note that the analysis performed to date does not include all areas of a trading contract. Similiar steps will still need to be undertaken with other provisions such as credit terms. At the meeting, I hope to further discuss the additional areas everybody believes should be reviewed. Aron Roffwarg, a lawyer from Bracewell, will also be at the meeting to assist us in this effort. Thanks
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Contract Review Meeting on Oct. 7th
Barry, Stinson forwarded your message to me. I am meeting Ted Murphy today and I shall bring it up with him. We have unit at Research (Tanya Tamarchenko, reporting to Grant Mason) who is responsible for V@R support. Vince
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
EBS VaR Transaction Policy