|
|
Enron Mail |
As we discussed, based on this email and the other information you have given
me, I have significant concerns about our ability to use the ENA products discussed below. Having ENA IT people involved on an ongoing basis in maintaining the software and assisting us in using it would probably constitute a violation of the marketing affiliate rules or would at minimum create the appearance of marketing affiliate violations. As I understand the risk books, etc., confidential information on our various capacity positions would be all over the place and difficult or impossible to firewall off from ENA people working on those books. If there is some firewall strategy that the ENA folks have in mind, i.e., if those IT people are or will be employed by Networks or Corp., I am eager to listen, but from what I have learned so far, I am not comfortable with our use of the ENA system. DF Lee Ferrell 11/16/2000 04:16 PM To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Kent Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Risk System Alternatives Next Steps We have been asked to justify our proposal to purchase third party risk management software rather than use in-house ENA systems. Since there are affiliate issues as addressed below, please give us your opinion of the risk we might run in trying to use ENA's systems. ---------------------- Forwarded by Lee Ferrell/ET&S/Enron on 11/16/2000 03:28 PM --------------------------- Lisa Sawyer 11/16/2000 01:48 PM To: Lee Ferrell/ET&S/Enron@Enron cc: Steve Hotte/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Vernon Mercaldo/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Beth Perlman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Burchfield/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephen Stock/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Risk System Alternatives Next Steps Lee, Just to recap the meeting with Richard Burchfield and Steve Stock, based on the requirements that you and Vernon have identified, we would need to use several of the system components including TAG, ERMS, GLOBAL COUNTERPARTY, CREDIT, and UNIFY for settlements. All of these applications are tightly integrated. We considered moving them into the ETS environment which would separate the applications, but this would be a very large undertaking and would be a resource intensive effort. Therefore, due to the size, complexity and integration of the applications, the group came to the conclusion that it would be more timely and cost effective from an inception as well as maintenance standpoint that ETS would have to share these systems with the marketing group, and that porting them to the ETS environment as separate application images would not be good from an overall migration as well as support standpoint. Additionally, we considered the EnPower System which is also integrated into GLOBAL COUNTERPARTY, CREDIT and UNIFY. We are planning on a demo Friday morning, but there may be some functionality that you all are looking for related to gas that EnPower cannot provide at this time and would require some customization. We'll know more tomorrow after the demo. Regarding security, these applications are secured to segregate the data, but we need an approval from Legal that it would be ok to use shared resources from the IT standpoint. This would include application developers and database administrators. Additionally, we would have to go through the process of verifying that there would be no security leaks where it would be possible for a marketer to run a report on pipeline related data, etc... If we can get an ok from Legal regardinig sharing of resources, then one of these options can be explored further, but if we cannot get approval on sharing of resources, it doesn't look like porting either of these applications into the ETS environment as standalone apps would be the most timely or cost effective way to go at this time. Can you get a stand from Legal regarding this issue? Thanks.
|