POSREP HOEGH GALLEON, DATE: 24-May 12:00 10:00 (UTC) A) Position at noon: N 36 25 E 13 55 B) Dist. From last noon: 294 nm C) Dist. To go to next port: 946 nm D) ETA next port: ALGECIRAS 27 06:00 LT E) 1: Average sea/wind Sea: NW 3 Wind: NW 2 2: Average speed 11.76 kn RPM: 60.93 3: BOG consumed 137 m3 4: BOG Total 137 m3 5: F.O Consumed 22 m3 6: G.O. Consumed 0 m3 7: Average vapor press Average liq. Temp: Tk1: 0.143 bar -158.3 ?C
Answer: POSREP MAY 24TH
Hi Herman, This is another turbine transaction. I think there will be another turn of this doc soon, but I want you to have a heads up. Kay
Answer: ENA/Blue Dog: Revised Letter Agreement
Mara: Are we done? I don't think we have heard from you about the master? Can we go ahead and have the guaranty executed? I don't think we have any outstanding issues.
Answer: ISDA Master Agreement
I recall that we set up a warning flag approach with market services last year to make sure that Sempra never "goes physical" without us manning the battle stations and deciding what to do. Do you guys know who the noms would come in to in Market Services if Sempra ever decided to try to take their gas out of Cunningham and move it off system? Care to venture a guess as to what that person would do if a 100,000 nom by Sempra into an IT contract for a haul from the Cunningham storage point to Demarc hit their desk? Sempra couldn't nom the gas into a transport contract without first giving Kent/Sue/Morgan a physical delivery nom under the SF agreement, correct? At which point we would immediately nom the SBA, correct? These issues may be important to our closing this year's deal if TCEM can't come up with the corp. guarantee. I.e., if we can retain absolute control of the noms, do we really have any "go physical" risk??? We need to think this through. DF
Answer:
last year's deal