Transcript pong game - Pakistani Students Blog

UZAIR KAMAL
Mohsin Murad
MAJID KHAN
Major Power Project Of The
Country
92 miles downstream the
confluence of Kabul and Indus
Rivers
260 ft high structure and
would create a reservoir 6.1
million acres feet (MAF) of
usable storage
About 11,200 GWh, generated
by hydro power plant of 2400
MW capacity
Estimated Cost Is Around US
$5.153 billion
A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an economic evaluation
technique. It can be used to appraise whether a dam project is
worth undertaking
• Define a referent group.
• Select a portfolio of alternative projects.
• Identify potential (physical) impacts of the project.
• Predict quantitative impacts over the life of the project.
• Monetize all impacts.
• Discount for time to find present values.
• Sum: Add up benefits and costs.
• Perform sensitivity analysis.
• Recommend the alternative with the largest net social welfare
value.
Group of individuals whose
welfare will be accounted for
when assessing the cost and
benefit of a project.
Not always the people affected by
the project.
But in Pakistan these projects are
undertaken from a national
perspective considering the
people of all the provinces.
Hence the referent group will be
the entire population.
Physical impacts are composed of construction, operation
and maintenance, mitigation and decommissioning costs.
Potential Impacts of a Dam Project
Impacts
Negative Impacts
•
•
•
Physical costs
Resettlement cost
Risk of dam failure
Land acquisition
Externalities
Positive Impacts
•
•
•
Hydroelectric power
Irrigation water
Reduction of flood losses and
seawater intrusion damage
•
Municipal and industrial
water supply
•
Net benefits to/from fishery &
recreational facilities
•
River navigation
Once all impacts have been identified, analysts have to quantify
them into physical terms.
Useful economic life of over 50 years, without requiring any
major replacement of machines and E&M equipment
Negative Impacts
Measurement
Physical costs
(Construction, O&M, Mitigation
and Decommissioning Costs)
Units of employed inputs
Resettlement cost
Physical property (e.g. # of houses)
Risk of dam failure
Physical property (e.g. # of houses)
•Land acquisition
- Deforestation
Area unit (e.g. Rai, hectare, acre)
- Depends on project site
•Externalities
- Greenhouse gas
- Social and cultural loss
- Waterlogging and salinity
- Volume of greenhouse gas emission
- Depends on project site
- Decrease in farm productivity
Positive Impacts
Measurement
Flood and seawater intrusion control
Level of flood, days of flood
Irrigated water
Cubic metre of water
(Expansion of irrigation area and
multiple crop cultivation)
Electricity
KWH/year
Net fishery and recreation
Day visit - day loss / tonnes of fish
Water supply
Cubic metre of water
River navigation
Transportation time saved
Physical Impacts
Appropriate Valuation Method
COSTS
1.
Construction, O&M, mitigation,
decommissioning
Capital goods
Materials
Labour
Market price
2.
Resettlement
2.1
Compensation
Property losses
Market price,
Revealed preferences (RCM),
and stated preferences (CVM)
2.2
Assistant expenses
Capital goods
Materials
Labour
Market price
3.
Risk of dam failure
Property
Market price,
Revealed preferences (RCM)
4.
Land acquisition
Forest land
Market price
Commercial agriculture timber, non- timber forest products
and wildlife
Market price, Revealed preferences, Stated preferences
Non-commercial timber, non timber forest products and
wildlife
Revealed preferences (RCM),
Stated preferences (CVM)
Ecosystem and biodiversity losses, species extinction
5.
Externalities
Stated preferences (CVM)
Social losses (loss in historic site, erosion of cultural
identity, community fragmentation)
Stated preferences (CVM)
Waterlogging and salinity
(Inclusively estimated with irrigation water benefits)
BENEFITS
1.
Flood and seawater intrusion control
2.
Water for irrigation
3.
Hydroelectric power
4.
5.
Incremental productivity
Revealed preferences (FIM)
Market price (for WTP)
Electricity generated
Market price, Shadow prices,
Revealed preferences (RCM)
Net days of visit
Market price,
Revealed preferences
(RCM, TCM, HPM, FIM),
Net fishery and recreation
Time saving
Revealed preferences (RCM),
Stated preferences (CVM)
River navigation
Time saving
Revealed preferences (RCM),
Stated preferences (CVM)
Description
P.V. construction cost of Kalabagh
With Kalabagh
(US $ million)
2,234
P.V. construction cost of project
0
P.V. construction cost of thermal plant
0
P.V. incremental thermal operating cost
0
Total P.V. Cost:
2,234
The total project cost at June 1998 price
level, including contingencies, price
escalation and interest during
construction, is estimated as US$ 5,700
million.
The project will pay back its investment
cost in a period of less than 10 years, as
projected project annual benefits are US $
628.18 Million
Average Annual Power Benefits
Rs. 25.50 Billion
Average Annual Irrigation Benefits
Rs. 3.50 Billion
Average Annual Flood Alleviation Benefits
Rs. 0.70 Billion
Additional Power From Tarbela
Rs. 3.50 Billion
AVERAGE YEARLY BENEFITS
Rs. 33.20 Billion
The alternatives to Kalabagh Dam are:
Raising water level in Mangla dam to offset
the effect of silting.
A de-silted Tarbela would yield the same
irrigation benefits as Kalabagh, but at oneseventh the cost in net present value terms
A thermal power plant of equivalent
capacity to Kalabagh were constructed, the
cost would still be lower by one-third
With Kalabagh
(US $ million)
Tarbela Action Plan
(US $ million)
2,234
0
P.V. construction cost of project
0
343
P.V. construction cost of thermal plant
0
918
P.V. incremental thermal operating cost
0
20
2,234
1,461
Description
P.V. construction cost of Kalabagh
Total P.V. Cost: