|
|
Enron Mail |
You're definitely not being difficult - it's good for us to know these
things. I'm going to check with Mike Swerzbin on this - he's the trader on 347356 - after the morning trading dies down a bit. Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring you. Thanks, Kate From: Sharen Cason 01/30/2001 07:03 AM To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Kimberly Hundl/Corp/Enron@Enron Subject: Deal 506549, 506550, 506551 Sorry, I didn't see these deals when I sent the first email. Kimberly Hundl had sent you a note about the contact. Are these deals like the other two deals, and should be confirmed totally separately from the deal #347356. Sorry to be so difficult, but we get into trouble everytime we confirm a Conoco deal because of the special language that needs to be included on deals that are part of #347356, and we never get any notes that tell us whether or not it is part of the extension of the original deal. Thanks! ---------------------- Forwarded by Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT on 01/30/2001 08:58 AM --------------------------- Kate Symes 01/29/2001 06:22 PM To: Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Deal 507430 and 507417 Jack Wells is the contact for both - I've added his name to deal #507417. According to Sean Crandall, these deals are separate from 347356. That deal was a sale, and the deals entered today are all buys. Sean said we're just buying back the MW we originally sold them. But I think that's the only connection. Let me know if you need more of an explanation from the traders, but our take is that these deals are separate. Thanks, Kate From: Sharen Cason 01/29/2001 04:05 PM To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Deal 507430 and 507417 Are these two deals part of the original Conoco deal # 347356 that they are extending or something different? We need to know because we have to add something in the confirmation if they are extensions of the original deal. Also, is Jack Wells the contact for both? Thanks!
|