|
|
Enron Mail |
Bob, you are correct in your statement. But I want to be sure Koch understand
when they nominate their receipt at Carlton of 2828 the delivery on that path will be 2828 less fuel. Otherwise I agree with you statements. I will be out next week, but Raetta is up to speed on this issue if you have any questions. Thanks. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Stevens, Bob Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:10 AM To: Blair, Lynn Subject: FW: Receipt Points Lynn: Please verify that if Koch realigns their 35,000/d contract (K# 20510)such that their MDQ at Carlton matches their Carlton flow obligation of 2,828 and has the rest of their 32,172/d at Marshall (They would need to realign 30 mcf from Carlton to Marshall to effectuate the above, and I've checked with Doug Aschwege to make sure he would approve it.) that Steve's and my interpretation as described below is correct. Basically the question is whether the Carlton flow obligation is only the Tariff stated volume (ie., no fuel imputed) and that the remainder of the MDQ plus fuel on the whole 35,000/d will flow as primary firm receipts at Marshall. Thanks for your help! -----Original Message----- From: Phillips, Steve (EKT) [mailto:Steve.Phillips@entergykoch.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:25 PM To: Stevens, Bob Subject: Receipt Points Bob, Per our conversations earlier this month, My contract 20510 needs to have only 2828 mmbtu at Carlton and 32172 at Marshall. All of the fuel for the transport needs to be taken from Marshall. Currently, this contract has 2858 at Carlton. This is 30 above my obligation. After this change is made, it is my expectation that under no circumstances will my volume at Carlton be curtailed below a receipt volume of 32568 at Marshall. A combination of 2828 plus 32568 gives me a delivered volume of 35000. That is my firm entitlement and curtailments below that are unacceptable as long as my nominations are primary FT. Please contact me at 713-544-4017 if more clarification is needed. Thank you. Steve Phillips
|