QUESTION: Nicole, This is the position EXCLUDING Exotics. I haven't been able to load the text file yet. But I'll send that as soon as I have it. I also included the detail. Let me know if I can help. Robin x57478
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: FTPositions
There appears to be confusion over who and what products we should be trading with these entities. We have an ISDA Master Agreement in place with Northern Illinois Gas Company d/b/a Nicor Gas Company. This is a new master. If the counterparty is not set up this way it need to be. Physical gas has a master in place with Northern Illinois Gas Company. There is no master agreement in place with Nicor Gas Company and the only trading being done with this entity is online gas trading. The issue that needs to be resolved is whether we want to trade gas under both Northern Illinois Gas Company and Nicor Gas Company. Frank Davis will resolve this issue with Tom Moran in Credit and Stacy Dickson with physical gas Legal, and they will let us know who we should be trading with. When we hear back from them we can finally resolve what counterparty names we want to set up and get back to the counterparty if we have not received the correct Password Application to match out intended trading partners. Sorry for all the confusion this is causing. I am confused too.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Northern Illinois Gas Company/Nicor Gas Company
Rod, As I understand it from the last staff meeting we had, you are taking the l= ead (for Stan's group of businesses) in dealing with the many insurance iss= ues we have. I want to add to the list as follows: -=09Panama: after many months of work with the CPA and adjuster on a claim= of approximately $3.5 million, we are still waiting to receive an advance = payment of $1.5 =09million which was recommended by the adjuster. The unde= rwriter is simply using delay tactics. I understand from my team that the = overwhelming conclusion is that =09this will take at least initiating a leg= al procedure. =20 -=09Dominican Republic: steam turbine claim of approximately $16 million. = This claim has been sitting with HSB for months. HSB has simply refused to= recognize any =09of the BI beyond the 90 day deductible. Several meeti= ngs/conference calls have taken place and our view is that we will have to = apply high leve pressure (potentially =09using Ken Lay's relationship with = AIG) or pursue them legally if we want anything to happen in the near futu= re. Unfortunately, it appears that due to the absence of a =09cut-through = clause we would have to pursue them in DR courts through the fronting compa= ny. On top of all this, in securing this year's insurance coverage (which = as =09you know was allowed to expire without notice), we asked that the cut= through clause be dealt with this time around (apparently, this was someth= ing that was =09pursued last year and didn't get done). We have made the p= ayment of the policy and after being told that the insurer (verbally) appro= ved the cut through, now it =09appears that is no longer the case! To top = it all off, it looks like we have lost 5% of our underwriting coverage. In= short, we are about to go to litigation on a $16 =09million claim against = HSB; our current policy still lacks a cut through clause, and we have lost = 5% of our underwriting coverage. SECLP can hardly afford these =09types of= problems. -=09Nicaragua: the situation there hasn't changed much. We are being asked= to pay $1.2 million (for a 70 MW project!) with a deductible of $5 million= for physical =09damage and 90 days for BI. Essentially no coverage for a = project of this size. We are told we should be very happy (!) to be able t= o have the possibiilty of securing =09this, which, by the way, hasn't even = been fully secured. Note that this is adding one more plant (with a fairly= clean loss record) to the existing Enron umbrella. =09Finally, although a= t the beginning we were told that we could cancel at any time with the only= cost being the pro-rata portion of the annual premium, now, upon our =09ve= ry clear request for confirmation of such right, we have yet to receive sam= e. I wanted to make sure that you had this information as we attempt to find s= olutions to our insurance problems. =20 Thanks=09
Answer: Insurance Difficulties
Here is an email: Here are the very indicative prices Tim gave us for 5 year deals at SP15. They'll likely change by the time we meet with Sempra on Thursday. 25 MW, on peak (6X16): $53/MWh 25 MW, base load (7X24): $45/MWh 500 MW, on peak (6X16): $55/MWh 500 MW, base load (7X24): $47/MWh
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Belden's prices
Q: Just a brief note to thank you for the Enron/Astros Opening Day Caps! They are very nice, and I do appreciate the gesture. Thanks again,
Propose a subject line
A: 2001 Enron Field Opening Day Caps
Here is an email: Dear Mike and John, Not sure to which of you I should have addressed this email since you are both listed as doing liquid fuels. If I am wrong and it is neither of you would be really grateful if you could pass this email to the right EGM lawyer ASAP (with a copy to me so I know with whom to follow up). I am attaching a number of documents. (i) The first is an internal memo re two new products Enron Japan wants to put on EOL. The Enron CP will be ENA which is why I need your help before going to Mark. The memo describes the product generally and how it will work (and sets out the background as to why EJ is pushing this initiative). This is FYI only. (ii) & (iii) These are the draft product descriptions and GTCs and we need ENA legal sign off re same. If you are happy with these then I will pass to Mark Taylor for final approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. We are hoping to get this approved by Wednesday Tokyo time so if this needs to be passed on, I would be grateful if you could do this today (your time). RE product Descriptions - in addition to those changes which were needed to reflect the fact that the products are in yen and KL (and not in USD and Barrels) , we have used upper case for Business Days (because it is defined in the GTCs and the definition is important because it will not refer to Japanese holidays) and I have incorporated a new definition "the relevant Scheduled Trading Date" so that in accordance with what I understand to be standard EOL procedure, the top half of the product description can be the same for both products (despite the fact that the currency exchange will be done 3 days after a different date in the case of the two definitions) and only the bottom half will need to change. I have actually only made one small change to the GTCs, to provide for kiloliters in the rounding off clause. I assume that given that NY law will apply, that we don't usually amend the arbitration clause in the case of products likely to be purchased by non-US counter parties. I am less sure about the events of default clause. The language seems pretty short and generic so I suspect that we probably don't put CP jurisdiction specific events in but please confirm. ********************* Please leave me a message or send me an email if you want me to call you Monday evening your time. Thanks very much for your help..
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
EOL - new Product - JPY / KL WTI Swap