Re: Counterparties w/ Master Agreements with ECC

It does more harm than good to just do the one leg. We are currently
settling all of these deals incorrectly b/c they are pointing to the Houston
office instead of Calgary. Please let me know if there is anything that I
can do to make sure this happens more quickly.

Thanks

From: Michael Swaim on 12/12/2000 10:13 AM
To: Dawn C Kenne/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Torrey Moorer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tara
Sweitzer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer deBoisblanc Denny/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kam
Keiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darron C Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT, William Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT,
David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Counterparties w/ Master Agreements with ECC

I can make the list of counterparties used by the bridge database driven,
and have it maintainable via the Tagg maintenance program. Currently, the
bridge only does the first part of the deal. Flipping out the deal between
ENA and ECC has to be done manually. Because we're currently making a number
of changes to the bridge already, and I have other commitments, I'm loathe to
tackle automating the second leg until sometime after January.

Mike
x36043

Dawn C Kenne
12/12/2000 10:00 AM
To: Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Swaim/HOU/ECT@ECT, Torrey
Moorer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tara Sweitzer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jennifer deBoisblanc Denny/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kam Keiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darron C
Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT, William Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Counterparties w/ Master Agreements with ECC

I have received an updated list of the counterparties that have Master
Agreements with ECC. There are now about 40 counterparties that fall under
this category. What seems to be happening is that these counterparties are
hitting on US gas products on EOL and are not bridging into Tagg correctly.
Currently, they are bridging as one leg between ENA and the counterparty.
The problem arises during settlement because ENA cannot settle with these
counterparties, only ECC can. An example of what Risk is doing to the
products after bridging is Tagg#Q79131 / EOL #555401.

RISK: We need risk to verify that anytime, without exception, all companies
with Master Agreements with ECC that hit a US product must be booked as two
legs: leg one booked between ECC and the counterparty with risk assignment
of FT-US/CAND-ERMS; leg two flipping the risk out of FT-US/CAND-ERMS to the
appropriate risk book. Also, risk needs to verify that this is only for
Financial Swaps and not Physical deals.

IT: It is my understanding that a few counterparties are set up to be booked
correctly (with two legs). The list is now up to 40 counterparties and will
most likely be updated on a consistent basis. Is this something that Tagg
Maintenance can handle? Guidelines need to be set up for Risk/Global to
instruct IT when new Master Agreements are created with counterparties so
logic can be adjusted accordingly.

Does a meeting need to be set up to elaborate on these issues? Are there any
further issues that need to be addressed concerning ECC Master Agreements?
(i.e. What about when a counterparty with ECC Master Agreement hits a
Canadian product out of the Houston office?)
Please respond with your thoughts on this subject.

Thank you,
Dawn
3-9353