QUESTION: Guys, to end all arguments, I would suggest the following protocol which is similar to what was discussed at Columbia Lakes: a) P&P swaps and anything to do with the network strategy/assets in the paper sector in Canada and Mexico - Industrial Origination; b) Pure energy commodity positions and stand-alone energy assets (no outsourcing) for all industrial segments in Canada and Mexico - ECC or Enron Mexico; c) Energy outsourcing for all industrial segments in Canada and Mexico - I would like Enron Canada and Enron Mexico to develop a written target list in which ECC, Enron Mexico and the Industrial Origination groups would work together to develop, sell and execute on the most profitable and value adding outsourcing product for the industrial customer in Canada and Mexico - ECC and Enron Mexico's understanding of the energy markets in Canada and Mexico coupled with the customer facing, product development and execution skills in Houston should provide a winning team. I am asking for the three teams to clearly identify the outsourcing targets, lead sales and structuring people and the timing as far as starting discussion with each target customer (ASAP). I would hope that the Mexican and Canadian teams would lead the sales process and the Houston team lead the structuring, customer facing and execution but I will let you decide the optimum mix. Either way, I am expecting this target list completed and agreed to in the next two weeks for Canada and Mexico; and d) for Tembec I don't think it makes sense to change the deal team at this point; however, the US team will keep the Canadian team in the loop and if the products become non-outsourcing related the deal should be passed to ECC. Regards
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Tembec and US Originators
Mark, I can use your advise on a few new projects that I am working on. 1. The weather desk is trying to roll out a HDD Swap for Calgary by Monday= . Most of the anticipated buyers of the product will be Canadian counterpa= rties ECC has masters with. The desk originally thought that we need to cr= eate a GTC for Enron Canada using the ENA weather GTC. Because if the time= issues involved in creating a new GTC (fixing all the things that are wron= g with the ENA form) I looked for a new way to deal with this issue. I thi= nk I found it in section 3(d) of the ETA which provides that the Enron coun= terparty to a particular transaction will be the Enron Entity they have a m= aster with that covers that type of transaction. I believe this provision = was a stroke of genius designed for just this type of scenario. I can prep= are the long description to specify the Enron entity as "the applicable Enr= on entity" and if there is a master then the Enron Entity is the one with t= he master pursuant to Section 3(d) of the ETA and if there is no master the= ETA says the GTC applies and the GTC specifies that ENA is the counterpart= y. Do you think this works? 2. I was contacted by someone at McKinsey & Company yesterday who is worki= ng with the weather desk to develop a Bermuda Transformer Commercial Struct= ure to partner up with the Insurance market to provide some capital to our = weather trading desk. I have been told that conceptually it will be a Jedi= type arrangement. I have been asked to help them think through the issues= and coordinate with the other attorneys who work on these types of issues.= I do not want to get too deep into the structuring of this investment veh= icle myself without the appropriate legal group involved. Would this be so= mething Jordan Mintz's group would handle or would this be something that L= ance Schuler's group would develop? I thought I might want to talk to Juli= a Murrey (or Cristina Mordant or Carol St. Clair) to see what issues croppe= d up in the development of Jedi I and Jedi II (or maybe I should just talk = to whatever lawyer is currently handling these structures). What are your = thoughts on how to move forward? 3. The other rush deal is a financing deal out of Jordan's group. The dea= l I helped look at that was a physical forward using ISDA type language is = now a financial deal (a series of Total Return Swaps) that needs to close n= ext Friday. I will go to a meeting in the morning to try and get more info= rmation on the structure. Angela Davis who has worked on the Total Return = swap deals has offered to help me pilot this through. Sara thought I shoul= d check with you to make sure you don't have a problem with me taking on on= e of these deals. I am going to try and make sure they have Danny Sullivan= from A&K working on the deal since he is the most knowledgeable lawyer on = this type of structure. =20 I hope all goes well with your return flight plans. Brent
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: New Project Direction
I was advised by Lad Lorenz of Socal that their original application sets forth the plan by which they will sell the residual gas in the Montebello storage field. Can you please advise me of the final tems of the PUC decision (should have been announced yesterday) and get a copy of the application? Based upon yesterday's conference in D.C., I think the restructuring of Socal's backbone transportation is about to become a hot topic again! Please keep us apprised. Regards,
Answer: Montebello
Here is an email: There seems to be some confusion around which DPR captures credit reserve and consumption premium reserves and which balance sheet these items fall on. My understanding in talking with both Don and Kevin is that since EES is, on a go-forward basis, being granted origination (which would be the residual after all reserves are applied) that all prudency/reserve items will rest on the WhEES DPR. The EES DPR will be just a single line net origination number. We do need to capture the activity related to DSM in the EES DPR (including some portion of credit reserve and drift) but until we have the system capability to capture this it may just have to be part of the whole WhEES bucket. This tracks with the idea that all future exposures (be they be wholesale price movement, tariff movement, credit exposure, etc.) be borne by EWS. If so, they need the reserves to properly offset any realized activity. The balance sheet reserves associated with these items already rest in the ledgers that are rolling up underneath EWS now. Reflecting the positions on the WhEES DPR will make them consistent with how we are capturing them from an accounting perspective. If anyone disagrees with this treatment, please respond to all the parties above so we can resolve this issue. If there are no objections I would recommend moving the credit reserve over at the next possible point. Wade P.S. This thinking only reflects how things are currently contemplated, if the mix around what is with EWS vs. EES (i.e., accounts receivable) we may want to rethink the credit reserve portion.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
Credit Reserve