Good afternoon, IT Wizards - I'm curious about a feature on the new Forward Obligation Report. It is now possible to run the report showing term, scheduled, or liquidated deals. In the past I've always run the report showing term deals, then entered my desk-to-desk deals from those numbers. Now I believe the report is designed to pull data from our scheduling database, so I'm wondering what the difference is between the term deal report and the scheduled deal report. Each produce completely different numbers! Please let me know when you get a chance. Thanks,
Answer: Forward Obligation Report Question
Here is an email: GUYS: PLEASE SEE THE NEW SCHEDULE FOR JANUARY. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE (ie. A CHANGE IN WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING EVERY DAY). THANKS, BERT MEYERS
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: JANUARY SCHEDULE
Q: Hey guys. Let's try this. Take the data from 2000 and change the following. Take Keystone West volumes to 850,000/d rateably, then add the new gen numbers posted below. You will need to add this demand to the EOC S ML demand numbers (Is Salmayuca included in this number?). We should use the 2000 waha west volumes for now. You should end up with reduced ehrenberg volumes for the reduction in Keystone west volumes and the addition of New Gen demand. Run the storage balance at 2000 Socal in this scenario. We will then plug forward with waha west volumes to balance Socal in 2001. Also, add columns to adjust (90%, 60%, 50%, etc) the burns for new gen in SW. We should then look to adjusting socal demand down for the high hydro/increased NW imports to CA scenario that could happen. Use the SP-15 2000 gen numbers and then back out the avg of 1999 and 2000 power imports. I would like to avoid averaging 1999 and 2000 socal gas demand. Use a 10,000 heat rate to reduce gas demand. Have Jay adjust EOC demand for normal weather. We may have to refer to the load sensitivity data from west power to reduce the SW electric loads and then back out of gen numbers using a 10,000 heat rate. We will then be exposed to EPNG and the OPS increasing Keystone west volumes between now and next summer - run the 2001 with this possibility as well. Take Key West to 1.1 bcf. Let me know where my errors in approach may be. This should give us a picture of the Socal deliverability for 2001. Thanks,
Propose a subject line
A: APR-OCT Analysis
IN: Dear Member: As you may be aware, Senator Feinstein has proposed an amendment to the Senate energy bill. The amendment seeks to redress some serious regulatory gaps which are significant to the energy and metals marketplaces: 1) the differential treatment of electronically traded energy and metals futures 2) the inability to get critically needed information from over-the-counter (OTC) market operators The New York Mercantile Exchange is supporting the Feinstein amendment. We want to explain our reasons. Electronic trading systems offering traditional over-the-counter products for energy and metals trading are currently exempt from any regulation. The CFTC is without jurisdiction to oversee fair play, or to examine records, establish standards and deter misconduct as occurs on a traditional exchange like NYMEX. As these systems have gained importance in the price discovery process for many instruments, and as they are accepted as centralized marketplaces by the customers using them, we find the exemption from regulation of the platforms and their operators to be troubling. The Feinstein amendment is aimed squarely at the system operators, who take on the role of operators of a central marketplace. The amendment does not seek to impose restrictions on where OTC market participants might trade but provides some limited record keeping requirements, which are more than likely already part of their daily business. Instead, the amendment seeks to create a duty for system operators to report to the CFTC and be subject to the "Regulatory Lite" scheme set forth in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Imagine a situation where a large market participant held a substantial volume of crude oil in private storage, and then leased Cushing pipeline capacity for its own use or to move additional oil into storage. Market demand could be unmet by this company, and the ability of others to meet it could be frustrated, thus driving the price up. Suppose this company held a large long position on an over the counter system, and profited handsomely from this conduct. Would you really want that market user to be able to hide behind the unregulated status of the platform where those trades occurred to impede investigation? Is that the type of deterrent to misconduct that the industry wants? We do not think so. We urge you to notify Senator Feinstein and the bill's co-sponsor, Senator Fitzgerald of your support. Contact information is as follows:

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Exchange in Support of Feinstein Amendment
IN: This is an email
Bob, We have updated our EBS Master Agreement, so made some conforming changes to the EOL (with Credit) and EOL (without Credit) GTCs. Please find them attached. I have also revised the product descriptions that I have to make sure that the language was consistent (although I was given a number of versions to work from). Let me know if you have questions about any of these changes or if you have any questions about additional changes to EBS info on EOL that may be required. All the Best! Cynthia

What is the subject?

OUT: EBS Master Agreement
Matt, I think I cracked the query to give a counterparty based position of the SoCal product you requested. Can you (or Mike) varify the following numbers (COB 04/27/2001) ? I was unable at this point to net the volumes in one sweep .....
Answer:
US Gas Phy EPNG SoCal Topk 28-30Apr01 USD/MM