Enron Mail

From:kenny.soignet@enron.com
To:troy.denetsosie@enron.com
Subject:Bammel Transition
Cc:jim.coffey@enron.com
Bcc:jim.coffey@enron.com
Date:Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:48:00 -0800 (PST)

The exposure items I think may cause problems in the Bammel transition are:

All trades, physical and financial, after March 2001 have been reversed.
There are no open positions past his date on working gas. However, the
trades are still out there. They respresent no P&L since there are no open
positions. Is there any way these trades can change be cleared off the books
so that Risk Management can stop running the book after the transition?
These trades, buys and sells netting to zero, are for every month through
April 2007.

The cushion gas expected at the end of March is 60,000 bcf. If we have to
pay it back to bring the level up to 65 bcf there will be fuel/compressor
costs as well as the actual gas costs. This cost is usually a 1% percent of
injection volume charge to the book itself. The total cost would be the
actual electric compressor expenses which could be a lot higher than 1% of
the volumes injected. The more changes or swings in volume on the electric
compressors the higher the compressor cost.

Royalties and Production costs are usually paid on withdrawal volumes. I
believe we will have withdrawn all the gas before the transfer to AEP. The
gas is assumed to be withdrawn according to the current withdrawal schedule
by 3/31/20001.

There may be cost associated ad valorem. We will have working gas thru
February and go into cuhion gas in march. Ad valorem is paid on cushion and
working gas. We are usually charges based on the volume of gas as of
December 31st. This is a negotiated payment. Ted Ryan is more able to
answer these issuesor questions. The date the inventory levels are assessed
is not always December. It can change in negotiations. Ted Ryan can answer
if the date for 2001 is firm or not.

The third party storage contracts we are curently using in bammel are Texas
General Land Office and Cannon interesst. Cannon was assigned to Kinder
Morgan.
We also have Bammel balances in different intercompany ENA contracts As of
November 2000 Production ENA contracts had 22,192,745 mmbtu's of working gas
volumes and 11,891,487 mmbtu as HPLC. The December production schedule 6 is
not out yet. Usually all current activity is scheduled as HPL. Pma's can
affect the ENA balances. These pma's are usually minimal. Chris Price and
Rita Wynne can supply the contract numbers for the contracts we have volumes
under in Bammel. There are other contracts on file with the railroad
commission like El Paso, Sempra, etc. according to Irene Flynn. These
contract should be terminated. The balances are zero. Some of these
contracts were never used. Jackie Morgan should terminated these contracts.
These contracts do not automatically terminate since they are basic
contracts. These basic contracts specify the rates and terms in attachments
to the contract as confirms. There no confirms with terms other than Texas
General & Cannon/Kinder Morgan.

The only other issues I can think of is balance sheet items unidentified in
OA. There is a large unexplained variance for November production. This
balance is usually due to confusion between which deals are financial and
which are physical and problems due to the regions they are liquidated in.
Once the unexplained variances are identified, most of variances are
reclassed and get corrected. I assume the same thing will happed for
November production, however, we can not be sure until the process is
completed. Dave Baumbach, John Valdes, and Jody Crook are looking at
these variances and trying to clear up the back page items.