re : hpl discrepancy rita , please help me with this . i have some questions regarding enerfin .
why are we re - allocating prior month volumes at enerfin after we matched your
original numbers back in october ? can ' t this be fixed in the actualization
process ?
the numbers for october between ena - tetco and hpl vary a good bit . are we
your only customer at that point and why do we show volumes on days ena had
no transactions with hpl ? can we simply put zero paths in unify and extend
our existing deals in sitara with zero volumes and have you guys actualize
these small volumes to handle this ? we go round and round at this point
changing volumes two , three or more times . call me if you have questions . .
thanks victor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by victor lamadrid / hou / ect on 12 / 14 / 2000
08 : 50 am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : meredith mitchell on 12 / 14 / 2000 09 : 28 am
to : victor lamadrid / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : re : hpl discrepancy
victor ,
the sitara ticket that we were using for the month of october is # 421415 .
tetco shows that the volumes that hpl was allocated on october 6 th and
october 19 th , were 9 dths and 44 dths , respectively . those volumes were
pulled off of our backhaul contract because there was no nomination in
place . this is the same problem that we have had over and over with them .
also , we just found out on tuesday , that the oba did not go into effect until
december 1 , 2000 . we were originally told that they were putting the oba in
effect retroactively to november of 1999 . in fact , i thought that hpl had
made a lot of retroactive changes in the system to adjust for the oba , do you
remember that ? hpl told us that ray calles at tetco is the one who decided
that the oba would not be effective until december of 2000 . nobody even
informed us of this change , i stumbled upon it when researching a november
issue for alfonso trabulsi and brenda fletcher . in addition to all of this ,
i received another email , which i will copy below , asking me to go in for the
month of october and adjust all of my estimated volumes in unify to match
what hpl shows that we were allocated . i had been going in all month long
and matching to their numbers , and we were clean for the deadline at the end
of the month . i ran the allocation report from tetco for the month of
october , and some of hpl ' s numbers were very different from tetco ' s ,
including the two days that i mentioned above . i sent jackie young an email
back showing her tetco ' s numbers and i haven ' t received a response . i will
copy that email below as well , just to catch you up on what ' s been going on .
jackie young
12 / 12 / 2000 10 : 01 am
to : cynthia franklin / corp / enron @ enron , meredith mitchell / hou / ect @ ect
cc : rita wynne / hou / ect @ ect , sherlyn schumack / hou / ect @ ect
subject : estimated volumes for meter 98 - 0439 for ( 10 / 2000 )
cynthia / meredith :
please find below the estimates for the above referenced meter for 10 / 2000 .
once you ' re done placing these estimates on tetco ' s side , can you please
apprise me so that volume mgt . can conclude their business ?
thanks
- jackie -
3 - 9497
day volumes
1 39647
2 40040
3 39643
4 39809
5 39702
6 18 dec . ( str . gas )
7
8
9
10
11 29162
12 14689
13 40400
14 30599
15 30523
16 30394
17 30369
18 40547
19 88 dec . ( str . gas )
20 10126
21 20167
22 20208
23 20502
24 40408
25 45721
26 30978
27 43142
28 9667
29 9536
30 10290
31
from : meredith mitchell 12 / 12 / 2000 11 : 37 am
to : jackie young / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : october volumes
hi jackie ,
i ran a report from tetco ' s system to show the volumes that enron was
allocated for the month of october , and some of the volumes are very
different from the volumes that you show . i copied your numbers below and
copied tetco ' s volumes below that ( with the disrepancies in red ) . i was
wondering if you could double check the 3 rd , 4 th , 11 th , 12 th , 25 th , and 27 th
to see if you had purchases on those days from a counterparty other than
enron north america at that meter . it looks like maybe the volumes that you
show are the total flow at that meter , but i think that only part of the gas
was actually allocated to us . i don ' t mind putting the allocated volumes in
path manager , but i ' d like to make sure that on the above days , i am only
putting in the amount that enron was allocated .
also , on the 6 th and the 19 th tetco shows exactly half of what you show ,
which i thought was kind of strange . i am going to have to get tetco ' s
permission to do a retroactive nomination for those two days at the volumes
you have requested , before i can put anything in sitara or unify . my manager
is out of the office and will be back tomorrow , but i would like for him to
double check the deal that we will have to create in sitara for those two
days , since we are dealing with a prior month issue .
day volumes
1 39647
2 40040
3 39643
4 39809
5 39702
6 18 dec . ( str . gas )
7
8
9
10
11 29162
12 14689
13 40400
14 30599
15 30523
16 30394
17 30369
18 40547
19 88 dec . ( str . gas )
20 10126
21 20167
22 20208
23 20502
24 40408
25 45721
26 30978
27 43142
28 9667
29 9536
30 10290
31
day volumes
1 39647
2 40040
3 29732
4 24881
5 39702
6 9 dec . ( str . gas )
7
8
9
10
11 19441
12 9793
13 40400
14 30599
15 30523
16 30394
17 30369
18 40547
19 44 dec . ( str . gas )
20 10126
21 20167
22 20208
23 20502
24 40408
25 25401
26 30978
27 30099
28 9667
29 9536
30 10290
31
re : hpl discrepancy
rita , please help me with this . i have some questions regarding enerfin .
why are we re - allocating prior month volumes at enerfin after we matched your
original numbers back in october ? can ' t this be fixed in the actualization
process ?
the numbers for october between ena - tetco and hpl vary a good bit . are we
your only customer at that point and why do we show volumes on days ena had
no transactions with hpl ? can we simply put zero paths in unify and extend
our existing deals in sitara with zero volumes and have you guys actualize
these small volumes to handle this ? we go round and round at this point
changing volumes two , three or more times . call me if you have questions . .
thanks victor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by victor lamadrid / hou / ect on 12 / 14 / 2000
08 : 50 am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : meredith mitchell on 12 / 14 / 2000 09 : 28 am
to : victor lamadrid / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : re : hpl discrepancy
victor ,
the sitara ticket that we were using for the month of october is # 421415 .
tetco shows that the volumes that hpl was allocated on october 6 th and
october 19 th , were 9 dths and 44 dths , respectively . those volumes were
pulled off of our backhaul contract because there was no nomination in
place . this is the same problem that we have had over and over with them .
also , we just found out on tuesday , that the oba did not go into effect until
december 1 , 2000 . we were originally told that they were putting the oba in
effect retroactively to november of 1999 . in fact , i thought that hpl had
made a lot of retroactive changes in the system to adjust for the oba , do you
remember that ? hpl told us that ray calles at tetco is the one who decided
that the oba would not be effective until december of 2000 . nobody even
informed us of this change , i stumbled upon it when researching a november
issue for alfonso trabulsi and brenda fletcher . in addition to all of this ,
i received another email , which i will copy below , asking me to go in for the
month of october and adjust all of my estimated volumes in unify to match
what hpl shows that we were allocated . i had been going in all month long
and matching to their numbers , and we were clean for the deadline at the end
of the month . i ran the allocation report from tetco for the month of
october , and some of hpl ' s numbers were very different from tetco ' s ,
including the two days that i mentioned above . i sent jackie young an email
back showing her tetco ' s numbers and i haven ' t received a response . i will
copy that email below as well , just to catch you up on what ' s been going on .
jackie young
12 / 12 / 2000 10 : 01 am
to : cynthia franklin / corp / enron @ enron , meredith mitchell / hou / ect @ ect
cc : rita wynne / hou / ect @ ect , sherlyn schumack / hou / ect @ ect
subject : estimated volumes for meter 98 - 0439 for ( 10 / 2000 )
cynthia / meredith :
please find below the estimates for the above referenced meter for 10 / 2000 .
once you ' re done placing these estimates on tetco ' s side , can you please
apprise me so that volume mgt . can conclude their business ?
thanks
- jackie -
3 - 9497
day volumes
1 39647
2 40040
3 39643
4 39809
5 39702
6 18 dec . ( str . gas )
7
8
9
10
11 29162
12 14689
13 40400
14 30599
15 30523
16 30394
17 30369
18 40547
19 88 dec . ( str . gas )
20 10126
21 20167
22 20208
23 20502
24 40408
25 45721
26 30978
27 43142
28 9667
29 9536
30 10290
31
from : meredith mitchell 12 / 12 / 2000 11 : 37 am
to : jackie young / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : october volumes
hi jackie ,
i ran a report from tetco ' s system to show the volumes that enron was
allocated for the month of october , and some of the volumes are very
different from the volumes that you show . i copied your numbers below and
copied tetco ' s volumes below that ( with the disrepancies in red ) . i was
wondering if you could double check the 3 rd , 4 th , 11 th , 12 th , 25 th , and 27 th
to see if you had purchases on those days from a counterparty other than
enron north america at that meter . it looks like maybe the volumes that you
show are the total flow at that meter , but i think that only part of the gas
was actually allocated to us . i don ' t mind putting the allocated volumes in
path manager , but i ' d like to make sure that on the above days , i am only
putting in the amount that enron was allocated .
also , on the 6 th and the 19 th tetco shows exactly half of what you show ,
which i thought was kind of strange . i am going to have to get tetco ' s
permission to do a retroactive nomination for those two days at the volumes
you have requested , before i can put anything in sitara or unify . my manager
is out of the office and will be back tomorrow , but i would like for him to
double check the deal that we will have to create in sitara for those two
days , since we are dealing with a prior month issue .
day volumes
1 39647
2 40040
3 39643
4 39809
5 39702
6 18 dec . ( str . gas )
7
8
9
10
11 29162
12 14689
13 40400
14 30599
15 30523
16 30394
17 30369
18 40547
19 88 dec . ( str . gas )
20 10126
21 20167
22 20208
23 20502
24 40408
25 45721
26 30978
27 43142
28 9667
29 9536
30 10290
31
day volumes
1 39647
2 40040
3 29732
4 24881
5 39702
6 9 dec . ( str . gas )
7
8
9
10
11 19441
12 9793
13 40400
14 30599
15 30523
16 30394
17 30369
18 40547
19 44 dec . ( str . gas )
20 10126
21 20167
22 20208
23 20502
24 40408
25 25401
26 30978
27 30099
28 9667
29 9536
30 10290
31