This is the content of an email: Use the "Daily Activity" worksheet in this file. The CES storage balance as of 7/31/2000 is 4,053,932 dth (see balance in cell L146). The actual sale to CES for the storage injections is deal 268094 - this deal shows the daily and monthly activity. If I remember correctly, the only confusion we had on the TCO storage was the beginning balance. There was 170,981 dth in storage on March 31st. To correct for this, we adjusted the injections for April so that the balance on April 30th was 13%. Let me know if you have questions.

Subject: TCO Storage

This is the content of an email: Monika, As it looks like I may have a slow day today, I was wondering if you could forward your most recent copy of the Itochu analysis for review? Thanks. KC

Subject: Itochu Company Analysis

This is the content of an email: Either I didn't fully understand the December Texas Eastern order or else FERC has just put a new and unhelpful spin on it. The Thursday rehearing order dramatically changes how the "shipper must have title" rule applies to acquisitions of upstream capacity. I thought the Dec. order pretty clearly allowed a pipe to acquire upstream capacity and then resell that capacity under the acquiring pipeline's rate schedules. FERC specifically held that the "shipper must have title" policy won't be applied if the acquiring pipe treats the acquired capacity "as though it were part of its own system". (p. 61,886) The Dec. order even cited TW's acquisition of park n ride capacity from PG&E as an example of the type of transaction that (I thought) could be done without advance Commission approval. Now, FERC explains that it did not intend a "blanket waiver" of the shipper must have title policy. Pipes can still acquire upstream capacity without advance FERC permission, but only if the acquiring pipe is going to use the acquired capacity for operational needs or to resell under the selling pipe's release mechanism. If the acquiring pipe wants to use the acquired capacity to support sales of service under the acquiring pipe's rate schedules, a specific waiver of the "must have title" policy is required (see FN 20 and text). We are right back to where we started. I guess the orders signal that FERC is much more likely to grant waivers of the "must have title" policy than in the past, but I don't think we are good to go to acquire upstream storage, for example, and resell it as FDD or IDD until we get permission first. Shelley--let me know if you hear any expressions of outrage from other

Subject: Texas Eastern

This is the content of an email: I received a message today from one of the brokers at ED&F Mann, who said he was waiting on our payment for a Palo Verde futures contract for April. I remember something like this happening last month, and I remember you two coming to the rescue, which is why I'm asking for your assistance. If either of you get a chance on Monday, let's get together and figure out why this hasn't been paid, or maybe why it HAS been paid and not received. I believe the deal in question is 531782 - Long Term Southwest buys from Avista for the month of April, price $196, trade date 2/26. Doesn't this seem eerily reminiscent of the last contract that ED&F Mann didn't receive payment on? Was it Avista that time too? The contact at ED&F Mann is Martin, and his number is (212) 566-9329. Just let me know when you have a moment to talk. Thanks,
Subject: NYMEX Futures Payment