|
|
Enron Mail |
Per Chris' memo below, it appears to me the question we need to be asking is
this: Was this contract number from CES (columbia gulf k#64502) valued in the original deal? Originally Chris was told that this contract was a volumetric FT contract, when in fact it is a 100% demand charge contract. Since it is a deal tied to the Devon production, I don't know how (or if) it was valued by us. Theoretically, we could have taken the difference between the max IT rate (which is what we get to deduct from the producers' price) and the amount of the demand + variable cost of the FT contract and MTM'd $$$. Did we do this? If we did, then I believe we have a true up issue with CES. If we did not value anything, then I think we are O.K. Please advise. Chris Germany 03/21/2000 02:40 PM To: Scott Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Breese/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: CES Capacity Issues I will be emailing all of you with any capacity issues I find. CGLF k#64502 ; This is an offshore FTS2 contract that we use with the West Cam Devon production. The demand charge is $1.4381 on a volume of 29,000 dts and the commodity is $.0024. According to my notes; this is a volumetric demand contract and the volumetric demand charge in my sheet is $.0648 I am changing this to a regular demand charge contract in Sitara and the worksheet. Comments/Questions?
|