|
|
Enron Mail |
Good thinking and good hustle on your part Craig, as usual. Do we know what
the system problems were and if they were on their end or ours? I agree that timetable issues in general and the approval process for Demarc deals, in particular, need to be reviewed when we get together on contract process issues. From: Craig Buehler 02/02/2001 12:20 PM To: Kent Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Danny McCarty/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Dave Neubauer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jo Williams/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Nielsen/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Karen Brostad/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rick Dietz/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Linda Trevino/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: Routing request on EOL deal This is a long story... Oneok requested a deal for Feb. 3-28, 10,000/d from MidCon Pool to Demarc @ $.03/d Demand + Min. Commodity (Standard Language terms plus all Field Area points available as alternates at the discounted rate). Originally, this deal was going to be entered into via EOL. I input the deal's terms into CMS (contract system) under this assumption. Oneok was a first-time EOL participant and they had system problems when attempting to accept the EOL posting. With the "on-time" nom deadline fast approaching, I decided to switch the deal over to a standard TFX agreement. Since EOL deals are "pre-approved," the deal had already been manually routed (at my request) so it could be activated per our standard EOL process. This deal was required to route due to the Demarc DP (all other terms were standard and within the Marketer's approval level). At the point I decided to switch the deal over to a TFX deal from an EOL deal, it was impossible to re-route for approval . I advised Danny and Drew of the change and they signed off on the CAF form. I then called Ranelle and advised her of the switch from EOL to TFX but she was not given time to review the agreement. The deal was then faxed to the Shipper, signed, returned, activated and nominated prior to 11:30am. The deal got done but not within our standard procedures. The window between a deal being struck and on time noms (a factor in the deal's value) is constantly shrinking, leaving no room for error. Hopefully the Contract Process meeting scheduled for next week will address some of these issues. If anyone has additional questions, I'll try and answer them. Craig ============================================================================== ==================== Karen Brostad 02/02/2001 11:42 AM To: Craig Buehler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: Routing request on EOL deal Craig: Would you please respond to Mary Kay on what transpired on this deal since I did the approvals? Thanks Karen ============================================================================== ==================== From: Mary Kay Miller 02/02/2001 11:10 AM To: Karen Brostad/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: Routing request on EOL deal What was the EOL posting for, besides 10,000? term, rate etc? MK ============================================================================== ==================== Karen Brostad 02/02/2001 11:01 AM To: Kent Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Danny McCarty/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Dave Neubauer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Craig Buehler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Linda Trevino/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rick Dietz/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Routing request on EOL deal There was an EOL deal this morning for Oneok Field Services, req 39940, for 10,000; Midcontinent Pool to Demarc that because of demarc, requires approvals through President level. Due to the nature of the EOL deals, I routed the request then approved on your behalf immediately thereafter. Please disregard your email notice to approve request 39940. Should you have further questions, please advise. Karen Brostad x 37312
|