Message-ID: <9900644.1075842558673.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:22:00 -0800 (PST)
From: drew.fossum@enron.com
To: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com
Subject: Re: PGT-NW expansion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Drew Fossum
X-To: Jeffery Fawcett
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: FOSSUM-D
X-FileName: dfossum.nsf

Why would PGT do that????  If there was that much demand, you'd think they 
would have been able to extract a neg. rate deal for something north of max 
for a shorter term.  Maybe that shipper demanded the recourse rate.  Weird.  
By the way--good memo to Shelley on Red Rock.  df





From: Jeffery Fawcett/ENRON@enronxgate on 02/22/2001 03:49 PM
To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Danny McCarty/LON/ECT@Enron, Lorna 
Brennan/ENRON@enronXgate, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan 
Scott/ENRON@enronXgate, Lorraine Lindberg/Enron@enronXgate, TK 
Lohman/ENRON@enronxgate, Michelle Lokay/ENRON@enronXgate, Kimberly 
Watson/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:  

Subject: PGT-NW expansion

Rumor on the street is that the entire 200 MMcf/d of capacity in the PGT-NW 
expansion went to one shipper who offered max. rates for 35 years.

