|
|
Enron Mail |
I would suggest not giving the complete file for Northern to INGAA. The Annual Summary File only for Northern should be sufficient. The TW report, suggest to remove the monthly entries and provide only the totals for 2000.
Keith -----Original Message----- From: Dietz, Rick Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:20 PM To: Petersen, Keith; Hartsoe, Joe Cc: Corman, Shelley; Miller, Mary Kay; Kirk, Steve Subject: RE: Data for Comments and for Economist's Report Attached are Excel spreadsheets that summarize TW and NNG affiliate interconnect points and volumes for the year 2000 for the data request # 1 below. We believe the answer to both data request # 2 and data request #3 is "none". If you have any questions, please give me a call at (713) 853-5691. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Petersen, Keith Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 7:39 AM To: Corman, Shelley Subject: FW: Data for Comments and for Economist's Report Shelley, have seen this request to provide information to INGAA? - If you have not seen, can your group provide without much problem? - If you seen and have provided, could I get a copy to review? Thanks Keith -----Original Message----- From: Miller, Mary Kay Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 12:17 PM To: Petersen, Keith Cc: Kirk, Steve Subject: FW: Data for Comments and for Economist's Report Keith, please coordinate getting this info asap- so we can send it back to INGAA- Steve, do you have of this? MK -----Original Message----- Subject: Data for Comments and for Economist's Report In order to give some concrete statistics for our argument that midstream and production affiliates are important links in the infrastructure with affiliated pipelines (and, of course, that applying the NOPR to pipeline affiliates would be a disaster), please provide data to answer the following three questions. Our customer operations guys tell me this is a pretty straigtforward exercise.O bviously, given the 13 days until comments are due, time is of the essence. So please respond by COB Tuesday, if possible. 1. For each pipeline, how many interconnects do you have that receive gas from an affiliated interstate pipeline? For all these interconnects, how much gas flowed through them (in the aggregate) in 2000? 2. For each pipeline, how many interconnects do you have that receive gas from affiliated gatherers, processors, or intrastate pipelines? For all these interconnects, how much gas flowed through them (in the aggregate) in 2000? 3. For each pipeline, how many interconnects do you have that deliver gas into affiliated intrastate pipelines? For all these interconnects, how much gas flowed through them (in the aggregate) in 2000? Additionally, Michael Doane, the economist INGAA has retained, would like to have the following information for his report. It can be anecdotal, but having something concrete to point at is critical. He needs all the examples we can provide of existing infrastructure (gathering-to-pipeline, processing-to-pipeline, production-to-affiliated gathering and pipeline) that would not have gone forward if pipelines were not allowed to coordinate with their midstream and production affiliates. If at all possible, state the natural gas deliverability that's there today, which would not have been there. under the proposed rule. As you'd suspect, this also has to be done as quickly as possible. Get the information to me, and I'll forward it to Michael. Thanks for your help. Rick ****************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it from the ElPaso Corporation are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. ******************************************************************
|