water supply study krpp

11/29/2007

Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant

1

WWWAAATTTEEERRR SSSUUUPPPPPPLLLYYY FFFRRROOOMMM TTTHHHEEE IIIBBBEEERRR LLLEEEPPPEEENNNCCC HHHYYYDDDRRROOO SSSYYYSSSTTTEEEMMM FFFOOORRR TTTHHHEEE

PPPRRROOOPPPOOOSSSEEEDDD KKKOOOSSSOOOVVVOOO CCC PPPOOOWWWEEERRR PPPLLLAAANNNTTT

Evaluation of the Hydro System and Water Availability Assessment

Kosovo, November 2007

11/29/2007


2

Content

1 Description of the Hydro System

2 Forecast of Power Plants water consumption

3 Water used by other industries

4 Irrigation System consumption forecast

5 Domestic water; Evaluation of present consumption and forecast

6 Consumers identification and prioritization

7 Leakages and flow in the Main Canal

8 Biological Minimum Flow in Iber River

9 Water flow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant

10 Water balance in Secondary Reservoir

11 Natural inflow in the Main Lake

12 Water balance in Main Lake

13 Overflows balance and total discharges in Iber River

14 Sensitive variables: inflow in the Main Lake, water losses in the Main Canal, domestic consumption, water for irrigation

15 Sensitivity analysis

16 Conclusions about water availability

17 Estimation of present losses in the Main Canal

18 Estimation of costs for Main Canal repairs

19 Estimation of costs for Buffer Basin

20 Water tariffs to cover investment costs

11/29/2007


3

1 Description of the Hydro System Iber-Lepenc Hydro System was designed do deserve four main categories of water consumers:

� Households in Mitrovica, partially in Prishtina and in other small localities; � Irrigated land in the upstream of Sitnica River and in Drenas Town area (around 26,000

ha); � Several industrial sites (lignite mines, metallurgical factories, manufacturing factories and

other); � Strong group of thermo-electric power plants (Kosovo A, B and C), using lignite to

produce energy. In the same time, the Hydro-Electric Power Plant, using the water of Gazivode Lake was intended to produce around 100 MWh. The system never worked at full capacity. Kosovo C Poser Plant is not yet a reality, irrigated land never arrived at the planed superficies, and some industrial factories were not completely developed. Presently, the system works at a low level, because of war destruction and of changes in economic structure induced after this period. Only the Hydro-Electric Power Plant works close to the designed capacity and cover around 80% of revenue of Iber-Lepenc Enterprise revenue, the administrator of the overall system. The system still is functional in the most of its components, but some of elements must be repaired or renew. The simplified physical and operational structure of Iber-Lepenc Hydro System is presented in Picture 1. More or less, the schema reproduces the real system:

� Kosovo B (and C) are provided by water at the end of the canal; � Main quantity of water for domestic consumption go to Mitrovica, at the start of the canal; � The most important irrigated area is between these two points.

A more detailed schema is not strictly necessary for present approach.

11/29/2007


4

Picture 1 – Iber-Lepenc Hydro System

3 Outflow for Hydro-Electric Power Plant

5 Flow at Main Canal Start Gate

4’ Compensation Flow from SR Spillway

4 Biological Minimum Flow in Iber River

3’ Compensation Flow from Main Lake

2 Outflow to Hydro-Electric Power Plant

10 Kosovo B Water Consumption

1 Natural Inflow in the Main Lake

6 Domestic Water Consumption

7 Water for Irrigation

8 Water Consumption in Industry

9 Additional Flow in Lab River (Kosovo A)

10 Kosovo C Water Consumption

Kosovo C

Biological Minimum Flow

Iber River

Start of the Main Canal

Possible Buffer

Reservoir

Domestic Water

Water for Irrigation

Water for Industry

Kosovo B Flow

Mitrovica, Prishtina & Other Municipalities

All Irrigated Area

Mines, Factories & Other

Kosovo B

Additional Water from Main Lake

Main Lake

Main Dam

Hydroelectric Power Plant

Lab River

Kosovo A Flow

Main Canal

1

2

5 Losses Losses Losses Losses

Losses Losses along the Main canal

Secondary Reservoir

4'

Secondary Dam

3

3’

4

6

7

8

9

10

Kosovo A

Spillway SR Flow

Natural Inflow

11

Kosovo C Flow

11/29/2007


5

2 Forecast of Power Plants water consumption Figure 2 reproduce the investment works schedule (and water consumption for all Power Plants) for the planned Kosovo C Power Plant, provided by the team of Lignite Power Technical Assistance Project. Figure 2 – Investment schedule and water needs for Power Plants

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Start Investment works I II III IV MW 500 1,000 1,500 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Kosovo C Variant 1

m3 / sec 0.38 0.76 1.14 1.14 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52

Start Investment works I II III IV MW 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Kosovo C Variant 2

m3 / sec 0.38 0.76 1.14 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52

3 units Stop MW 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 Kosovo A

m3 / sec 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

MW Kosovo B

m3 / sec 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

Water Needs for all Power Plants

Variant 1 m3 / sec 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.28 1.66 2.04 2.04 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42

Variant 2 m3 / sec 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.28 1.66 2.04 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42

Water Maximal Needs for all Power Plants Variant 1 m

3 / sec 2.42 2016

Variant 2 m3 / sec 2.42 2017

Kosovo C investment program take into account two variants, differing by the deadline for every production group. Both variants start in 2008, but the first is planned to finish all groups in 2016 and the second in 2017. For every energetic group will be necessary 0.38 m

3 / s water flow. At

the end of the construction (2016 or 2017) Kosovo C will consume 1.52 m3 / s.

Kosovo A still working until 2020 and the additional water provided by Iber-Lepenc System (passing by Lab River) are quite constant: 0.20 m

3 / s.

Kosovo B water consumption is estimated to be 0.70 m

3 / s all the envisaged period.

The first year with maximum consumption is 2016 or 2017, depending of the investment variant adopted. The following calculations consider the consumption vales in these years.

3 Water used by other industries The average water consumption of the other industries (mines, metallurgic and manufacturing factories) is estimated to 1.00 m

3 / s for all the period. Presently its consumption is null, the

existing industrial units not working. For 2016 0r 2017 is foreseen a possible resuming of the industrial activity. The annual estimated consumption is 31,536 m

3.

11/29/2007


6

4 Irrigation System consumption forecast In 2005 was irrigated around 650 ha of a total of 26,000 ha prepared to be irrigated. The water consumption for irrigation was insignificant. Several documents of Ministry of Agriculture contain different numbers of hectares forecasted to be irrigated in the near future (between 5,000 and 10,000). The consultant assume that in 2016 only is possible to irrigate 10,000 ha with an average water consumption around 2,000 m

3 / ha / season. The specific consumption is close to consumption in

Former Yugoslav Republic Macedonia in 2006. The Table 1 contains the calculation of corresponding water flow. Table 2

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

ha 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

% 7.00% 23.00% 30.00% 25.00% 15.00% 100.00%

m3 / ha 0 0 0 0 140 460 600 500 300 0 0 0 2,000

m3 / ha / day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.52 15.33 19.35 16.13 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.48

Mm3 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.400 4.600 6.000 5.000 3.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.000

m3 / s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.77 2.24 1.87 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63

Only in May – September period the irrigation system provide water for its clients. The total volume of water consumed by the irrigation system taken into account for 2016 is 20 Mm

3. The average water flow is 0.63 m

3 / s, but in full season can be 2.24 m

3 / s.

5 Domestic water; Evaluation of present consumption and forecast

Today, the quantity of water provided by Iber-Lepenc System to Municipal Water Companies (in fact only in Mitrovica and rarely in Prishtina through one of the accumulation lakes of the City) is very low: only 15 Mm

3 by year. The Table 2 calculates the per capita consumption and forecast

the volume for 2016 year. Table 2 – Present and forecasted domestic water consumption

Average Water Delivered in 2006 Forecast

Period Days m3 l / c / d % l / c / d

Jan 31 1,178,496 317 93.17% 186

Feb 28 1,077,120 321 94.28% 189

Mar 31 1,178,496 317 93.17% 186

Apr 30 1,226,880 341 100.23% 200

May 31 1,321,344 355 104.46% 209

Jun 30 1,278,720 355 104.46% 209

Jul 31 1,321,344 355 104.46% 209

Aug 31 1,321,344 355 104.46% 209

Sep 30 1,226,880 341 100.23% 200

Oct 31 1,267,776 341 100.23% 200

Nov 30 1,226,880 341 100.23% 200

Dec 31 1,267,776 341 100.23% 200

2006 365 14,893,056 340 100.00% 200

The calculation and the forecast are based to the Iber-Lepenc Enterprise records. Or consumption is not really measured! The basic data contain a large margin of possible errors, but are only available.

11/29/2007


7

The per capita consumption in 2006 seems to be extremely large (340 liters / capita / day) very far to consumptions registered in other towns of the region: Slavonski Brod (Croatia) – 145 l / c / d; Vukovar (Croatia) – 141 l / c / d; Bijelo Polje (Montenegro) – 155 l / c / d. A realistic assumption is to consider 200 l / c / d for the future. Taken into account 200,000 people served (minimal assumption) the Table 3 calculates the water flow needed for domestic final users. Table 3 – Domestic Water Users Jan Feb Mar Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

l / c / d 186 189 186 200 209 209 209 209 200 200 200 200 200

m3 / s 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46

Mm3 1.155 1.056 1.155 1.203 1.295 1.254 1.295 1.295 1.203 1.243 1.203 1.243 14.600

The annual distribution of the water demand can be seeing in Picture 3. Picture 3 – Daily domestic water forecast

Daily Domestic Water Forecast for Kosovo

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

l /

c /

d

The monthly recorded consumption is almost constant and proves that the records are not based by measurement.

6 Consumers identification and prioritization The total water needs covered by the Main Canal are the sum of foreseeing consumptions of all the consumers. Resuming, the consumers are four:

� Households (population); � Irrigated farms; � Industry (other than electric power production); � Thermo-Electric Power Plants.

Simplified prioritization of the consumers specifies several criteria:

11/29/2007


8

1. Impact of leak of water to the consumer normal activity (or life); 2. Weight of the consumer in the total Main Canal water flow; 3. Available other water sources for the consumer (excepting Iber-Lepenc System); 4. Impact of leak of water to the overall Kosovo community; 5. Foreseen future evolution of consumption; 6. Environmental consequences of the leak of water; 7. Strictness of water characteristics imposed by the consumer; 8. Foreseen problems about payment of the invoices.

The multi-criteria prioritization is described by the Table 4. Table 4 – Multi-criteria prioritization of the water consumers

Criterion Weight Domestic Irrigation Industry Kosovo B Kosovo C

1 10 10 6 5 10 10

2 5 5 7 8 7 10

3 8 10 8 4 9 10

4 10 10 6 4 8 10

5 6 10 10 6 3 3

6 10 10 3 3 3 3

7 5 10 10 8 5 3

8 7 3 4 6 10 10

Total 536 387 310 430 463

Range I IV V III II

Explanations: 1) The main negative impact of water leak is to the population (life in a block of flats without water go to the hell) and to the power plants (it is no possible to work without water). The industry can works sometime with low water consumption and irrigation (even advisable) can miss. 2) The main foreseen consumer will be Kosovo C Power Plant. The small consumer is and will be the households. 3) Excepting Kosovo C and the population in the towns, other consumers have some chances to find other water sources for its needs. Industry can use own wells for underground water. Farmers can exploit the rivers or also wells. Even Kosovo B can eventually take part of the water by Stinica River due to the relatively low consumption. 4) If the population (or part of population) has no water, the social and politically consequences cannot be appreciated, but will be serious. If Kosovo C is not build due to the lack of water all Kosovo will be involved because of problems with energy provision. 5) The population and irrigated farms water consumption is expected to increase constantly. A less accentuated evolution is foreseen for the industry. Consumption of the power plants is constant. 6) The lack of water can have important environmental consequences in the case of households (very evident). If Kosovo C is not carried up because of lack of water, the existent pollutant energy producers must compensate increasing its production. The same situation if Kosovo C production diminishes. 7) The most strictly specifications for water provided are for Kosovo C. The more relaxed are for population (if the drinking water network has a treatment plant) and for irrigation.

11/29/2007


9

8) Kosovo B (and is expected that Kosovo C will in the same category) is an almost good payer of the bills. The worst client is the Municipal Water Companies and perhaps the situation will not change too much in the future. The weight of every criterion is disputable, but some considerations explain the Consultant options:

� The importance of environmental issues, of consumers activity (presumed useful) and of social an politic climate are absolutely maximal;

� The quality water specifications and the weight of the consumer in total water provided by the system are internal problems of Iber-Lepenc Enterprise;

� Also the eventually bad debts. Ordering the consumers by the results of multi-criterion prioritization seems be clear that the most important is to provide enough water for Kosovo C and for population. Follow Kosovo B, irrigation system and industry.

Because of height range of Kosovo C (and B) in the prioritization is strongly important to have a large water reserve for this consumer.

At the end of Mai Canal the Consultant suggests constructing a buffer basin containing enough water to cover almost one week of Kosovo C demand.

The buffer reservoir is useful to assure necessary water in case of total interruption of the flow in the canal, due to the imposed repairs or to some contingent events (natural or human produced). The Main Canal situated of South of the Mitrovica secondary canal can be repaired without causing problems to the main part of the population served, located in the North. The North part of the Main Canal can be also interrupted few days, due to the reserves in drinking water network. Prishtina have own accumulation lakes which work as buffer reservoirs. May be this prioritization can beseem strange for a hydro-system designed mainly for irrigations. With the time, the conditions changed, the system deteriorated and the social and economic priorities are other.

7 Leakages and flow in the Main Canal Before analyze the losses in the Main Canal is necessary to calculate the total flow demanded by the consumers. The Tables 5 and 6 and Picture 4 explain its structure. Table 5 – Consumers flows in m

3 / s

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Domestic 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46

Irrigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.77 2.24 1.87 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63

Industry 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Kosovo A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20

Kosovo B 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

Kosovo C 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52

Total Cons 3.65 3.66 3.65 3.68 4.70 5.96 6.42 6.05 5.32 3.68 3.68 3.68 4.52

Table 6 – Consumers demand in Mm

3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Domestic 1.155 1.056 1.155 1.203 1.295 1.254 1.295 1.295 1.203 1.243 1.203 1.243 14.600

11/29/2007


10

Irrigation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.400 4.600 6.000 5.000 3.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.000

Industry 2.678 2.419 2.678 2.592 2.678 2.592 2.678 2.678 2.592 2.678 2.592 2.678 31.536

Kosovo A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.278 1.237 1.278 1.278 1.237 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.307

Kosovo B 1.875 1.693 1.875 1.814 1.875 1.814 1.875 1.875 1.814 1.875 1.814 1.875 22.075

Kosovo C 4.071 3.677 4.071 3.940 4.071 3.940 4.071 4.071 3.940 4.071 3.940 4.071 47.935

Total Cons 9.780 8.846 9.780 9.549 12.598 15.437 17.198 16.198 13.786 9.867 9.549 9.867 142.453

Picture 4 – Consumption forecast

Consumption Forecast

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

m3

/ s

Domestic Irrigation Industry Kosovo A Kosovo B Kosovo C

In the present, constant loss in water is produced along the Main Canal by height leakages. Detailed analysis of the phenomena will be presented in the chapter dedicated to the losses. The assessment regards the future and supposes a normal level of the water losses in the canal (uncovered). The Consultant estimates that, after repairs and renews the Main canal losses can be around 25% of total inflow (see Tables 7 and 8). It is an important reduction of actual losses (certainly higher than 50%). Table 7 – Losses in the Main Canal in m

3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Losses 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.57 1.99 2.14 2.02 1.77 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.51

Table 8 – Losses in the Main Canal in Mm3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Losses 3.260 2.949 3.260 3.183 4.199 5.146 5.733 5.399 4.595 3.289 3.183 3.289 47.484

The flow corresponding to the annual losses is equal to Kosovo C consumption! At the gate of the Main Canal the total inflow must compensate the losses, as shown the Tables 9 and 10 and Picture 5.

11/29/2007


11

Table 9 – Necessary inflow at the start of Main Canal in m3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Consumers 3.65 3.66 3.65 3.68 4.70 5.96 6.42 6.05 5.32 3.68 3.68 3.68 4.52

Losses 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.57 1.99 2.14 2.02 1.77 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.51

Start Flow 4.87 4.88 4.87 4.91 6.27 7.94 8.56 8.06 7.09 4.91 4.91 4.91 6.02

Table 10 – Necessary water inputs in Main Canal in Mm

3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Consumers 9.780 8.846 9.780 9.549 12.598 15.437 17.198 16.198 13.786 9.867 9.549 9.867 142.453

Losses 3.260 2.949 3.260 3.183 4.199 5.146 5.733 5.399 4.595 3.289 3.183 3.289 47.484

Start Flow 13.040 11.794 13.040 12.732 16.797 20.582 22.930 21.597 18.381 13.156 12.732 13.156 189.937

Picture 5 – Necessary inflow at the start of Main Canal in m

3 / s

Flow at the Main Canal Start Gate

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


m3

/ s

Total Consumers Losses

The Main Canal designed capacity is 22.2 m3 / s, but to cover the projected consumer’s needs and the losses is necessary to use only between 21 and 39% of the nominal capacity (see Table 11). Table 11 – Use of Main Canal Capacity

M m3 / s Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Start Flow 4.87 4.88 4.87 4.91 6.27 7.94 8.56 8.06 7.09 4.91 4.91 4.91 6.02

Nominal flow 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20

% 21.93% 21.96% 21.93% 22.13% 28.25% 35.77% 38.56% 36.32% 31.94% 22.13% 22.13% 22.13% 27.13%

The average annual use of the capacity is 27.13% but in the peak month (July) will be 38.56%. The reserve in capacity of the Main Canal can be useful if the overall consumption will increase or during the repairs works.

8 Biological Minimum Flow in Iber River Iber River after the Gazivode Lake must have a Minimal Biological Flow to conserve the environment. The minimal flow is 0.50 m

3 / s and is guaranteed by the outflow from the

Secondary Lake. Table 12 – Biological Minimal Flow in Iber River (after the dam)


11/29/2007


12

Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Mm3 1.339 1.210 1.339 1.296 1.339 1.296 1.339 1.339 1.296 1.339 1.296 1.339 15.768

m3 / s 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

9 Water flow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant Both the inflow and the outflow of the Hydro-Electric Power Plant using the Main Lake water are equal. The Consultant assumes that the internal water losses of the energy production are practically zero.

The energy produced (and sold) depends of the daily and monthly planed quantities and not of the demand in a free electricity market. The optimization of the water used and the optimized

balance between costs and revenue in the Hydro-Electric Plant can be taken into account only if Iber-Lepenc Enterprise will be able to decide the level and the periods of electricity production.

In 2006 the electricity production (and sales) was around 109 MWh (see Table 12). Table 12 – Electricity production in 2006

Average working hours by day 8.10 h

Average water consumption 13 m3 / s

Average daily water consumption 379,080 m3 / day

Average Water flow 4.39 m3 / s

Annual Water Consumption 138.364 Mm3

Water consumption for electricity production is calculated in Table 13 . Table -13 – Energy production and water consumption

Average energy sold in 2004 - 2006 Water used Month Days MWh % Mm

3 m

3 / s

Jan 31 12,798 11.77% 16.280 6.08

Feb 28 12,353 11.36% 15.713 6.50

Mar 31 16,365 15.05% 20.818 7.77

Apr 30 13,703 12.60% 17.431 6.72

May 31 10,696 9.83% 13.606 5.08

Jun 30 9,637 8.86% 12.259 4.73

Jul 31 7,956 7.31% 10.120 3.78

Aug 31 1,028 0.95% 1.308 0.49

Sep 30 3,086 2.84% 3.925 1.51

Oct 31 6,172 5.67% 7.852 2.93

Nov 30 4,667 4.29% 5.936 2.29

Dec 31 10,312 9.48% 13.117 4.90 2006 365 108,772 100.00% 138.364 4.39

Calculated water flow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant is shown in Picture 6.

11/29/2007


13

Picture 6 – Flows in Hydro-Electric Power Plant in m3 / s

Monthly Flow in Hydroelectric Power Plant

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


m3

/ s

Electricity produced and the levels of the Main Lake are presently the only real measurements used to manage all the system.

The Consultant assumes that in 2016 (or 2017) the Hydro-Electric Power Plant will work in the same conditions and will produce the same energy, with the same time distribution as in 2006. Table 14 forecast the water consumption (inflow from the Main Lake and outflow to the Secondary Reservoir). Table 14 – Flows in Hydro-Electric Power Plants (Turbines) in m

3 / s


Mm3 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 13.606 12.259 10.120 1.308 3.925 7.852 5.936 13.117 138.364

m3 / s 6.08 6.50 7.77 6.72 5.08 4.73 3.78 0.49 1.51 2.93 2.29 4.90 4.39

The values in the table above will change after the optimization study including the re-pumping solution to save the water and to improve the commercial efficiency of the electricity production (the study will be part of the Final Report provided by the Consultant). Water availability for Kosovo C is not affected by these changes because the inflow in the Main Canal not depends of flows in the turbines.

10 Water balance in Secondary Reservoir The Outflow from Secondary Reservoir must cover at least the compulsory Minimal Inflow in Main Canal (useful water consumption plus losses in the canal) and Biological Minimal for Iber River. The main Inflow in Secondary Reservoir is the Hydro-Electric Power Plant outflow. If is necessary, an additional flow by-passing the turbines can be delivered from the Main Lake. If the level of the Main Lake is higher than the maximum admissible level, another additional flow, created by the spillways will appear. Surpassing the Secondary Reservoir spillways the water will go in Iber River, in addition to the Biological Minimal Flow. This flow represent the water available (natural inflow in Main Lake) not valorized by the system (for water consumption or for electricity production). Re-pumping solution operate this reserve.

11/29/2007


14

Tables 15 and 16 calculate the Minimal Flow in Secondary Reservoir taken into account to cover useful consumptions, losses and Biological Minimal Flow in Iber River Tables 15 – Minimal Inflow in Reservoir Water Balance in m

3 / d


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Flow in MC 4.87 4.88 4.87 4.91 6.27 7.94 8.56 8.06 7.09 4.91 4.91 4.91 6.02

B.M.F.I.R 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Minimal Inflow 5.37 5.38 5.37 5.41 6.77 8.44 9.06 8.56 7.59 5.41 5.41 5.41 6.52

Tables 16 – Minimal Inflow in Reservoir Water Balance in Mm3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Flow in MC 13.040 11.794 13.040 12.732 16.797 20.582 22.930 21.597 18.381 13.156 12.732 13.156 189.937

B.M.F.I.R 1.339 1.210 1.339 1.296 1.339 1.296 1.339 1.339 1.296 1.339 1.296 1.339 15.768

Minimal Inflow 14.379 13.004 14.379 14.028 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 14.028 14.496 205.705

Flow in MC – flow in Main Canal (consumption and losses) B.M.F.I.R – Biological Minimal Flow in Iber River

Tables 17 and 18 calculate the water balance of Secondary Reservoir, adding the possible additional water from Mai Lake (farther the Hydro-Electric Power Plant outflow) and possible additional discharges in Iber River. Table 17 – Water Balance of Secondary Reservoir – in m

3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Outflow HEPP 6.08 6.50 7.77 6.72 5.08 4.73 3.78 0.49 1.51 2.93 2.29 4.90 4.39

Additional ML 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69 3.71 5.28 8.08 6.08 2.48 3.12 0.51 2.59

Inflow in SL 6.08 6.50 7.77 6.72 6.77 8.44 9.06 8.56 7.59 5.41 5.41 5.41 6.98

Minimal Inflow 5.37 5.38 5.37 5.41 6.77 8.44 9.06 8.56 7.59 5.41 5.41 5.41 6.52

Spillway SR 0.71 1.12 2.40 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46

Outflow of SR 6.08 6.50 7.77 6.72 6.77 8.44 9.06 8.56 7.59 5.41 5.41 5.41 6.98

Balance SR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 18 – Water Balance of Secondary Reservoir – in Mm3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Outflow HEPP 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 13.606 12.259 10.120 1.308 3.925 7.852 5.936 13.117 138.364

Additional ML 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.530 9.619 14.149 21.628 15.752 6.644 8.092 1.379 81.794

Inflow in SL 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 14.028 14.496 220.158

Minimal Inflow 14.379 13.004 14.379 14.028 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 14.028 14.496 205.705

Spillway SR 1.901 2.709 6.439 3.403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.452

Outflow of SR 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 14.028 14.496 220.158

Balance SR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Outflow HEPP – Outflow from Hydro-Electric Power Plant Additional ML – Additional water from Main Lake (by-passing the turbines) Minimal Inflow – Minimal inflow in Secondary Lake (Biological Minimal Flow, Consumption, Losses) Spillway SR – Flow discharged in Iber River by Secondary Reservoir spillways

The Secondary Reservoir capacity is 0.489 Mm

3. The volume of the water in the reservoir,

presuming that at the year start the capacity is full, not change during the year (see Table 19). Table 19 – Secondary Reservoir Content – Mm

3

in Mm3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31

Start 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480

End 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480

The Secondary Reservoir is only a buffer reservoir (passive) and has no problems, due to the spillways system and additional water from Main Lake.

11/29/2007


15

11 Natural inflow in the Main Lake The statistical data about the water inflow in Main Lake are very old (before the construction of the dam), but are only available. Iber-Lepenc Enterprise provided to the Consultant the information in the Table 20. Table 20 – Natural Water Inflow in Main Lake – in Mm

3

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 1948 70.5 42.2 44.3 98.0 66.8 74.7 18.3 9.7 8.4 10.1 10.1 5.6 458.6

1949 7.9 8.4 19.4 108.2 29.1 32.0 16.8 10.7 10.2 12.6 20.8 67.3 343.4

1950 19.7 47.7 44.0 43.0 11.0 5.9 4.7 3.7 3.7 15.7 22.4 28.3 249.7

1951 19.9 35.4 61.8 85.2 56.3 41.4 23.1 21.2 18.3 33.8 38.8 19.1 454.3

1952 25.7 32.0 83.3 104.4 40.6 26.2 14.1 9.4 7.1 24.1 42.3 98.5 507.8

1953 49.3 55.5 36.2 56.9 43.6 50.6 29.3 12.1 9.4 10.1 9.2 6.9 369.0

1954 6.6 6.6 57.9 47.2 90.9 23.4 14.7 9.7 9.2 24.4 65.0 63.1 418.6

1955 56.2 92.0 63.1 73.1 35.2 21.2 39.0 23.1 46.1 16.2 118.2 116.6 700.1

1956 16.2 5.5 16.8 77.3 79.6 21.0 9.7 6.3 4.2 4.3 6.0 7.9 254.8

1957 4.7 35.4 32.1 23.8 84.9 15.5 6.7 6.6 19.1 43.5 22.8 46.9 341.9

1958 34.5 32.8 76.0 118.4 83.8 83.8 10.5 9.0 5.8 7.6 13.4 18.1 493.6

1959 15.2 9.0 38.8 28.6 26.7 33.5 34.3 29.9 33.8 11.5 59.7 28.0 349.1

1960 18.3 62.0 31.7 42.7 63.1 34.8 14.4 8.1 7.1 17.6 49.8 39.3 388.9

1961 23.6 17.8 50.8 47.4 91.7 26.7 12.6 7.2 5.8 5.8 12.6 12.2 314.2

1962 12.2 23.3 85.9 101.9 108.7 24.1 16.8 10.5 8.6 17.0 32.6 37.6 479.3

1963 64.2 64.2 75.5 93.0 59.2 42.7 16.5 13.5 8.4 10.7 11.5 137.6 596.9

1964 15.5 26.1 41.1 36.8 60.3 48.7 29.9 25.9 24.2 45.3 50.8 54.2 458.8

1965 23.8 26.0 68.1 71.9 108.8 28.7 12.4 8.5 7.7 2.6 5.2 18.9 382.7

1966 20.5 76.2 46.4 56.6 94.8 52.4 12.8 4.9 3.5 4.0 20.7 31.2 424.1

1967 19.7 32.5 61.3 103.5 103.5 32.0 43.5 12.3 6.1 5.1 5.9 7.9 433.1

1968 17.6 48.7 50.0 55.0 20.5 27.2 4.5 6.8 10.0 8.8 30.9 36.9 316.9

1969 22.4 43.4 80.6 74.9 46.5 15.2 21.1 8.0 11.4 4.9 5.3 32.6 366.5

1970 55.3 50.3 63.1 93.1 71.3 46.6 33.5 10.7 7.8 10.7 17.8 18.4 478.6

1971 46.2 21.3 49.1 71.6 33.2 18.4 7.6 7.3 13.0 9.8 11.0 14.5 302.9

1972 8.8 11.1 16.9 29.0 29.6 10.7 80.5 11.4 50.6 69.4 42.6 23.6 384.3

25 years 674.2 905.3 1,294.3 1,741.5 1,540.0 837.5 527.2 286.5 339.4 425.6 725.3 971.2 10,268.1

Average 27.0 36.2 51.8 69.7 61.6 33.5 21.1 11.5 13.6 17.0 29.0 38.8 410.7

Median 19.9 32.8 50.0 71.9 60.3 28.7 16.5 9.7 8.6 10.7 20.8 28.3 358.3

Median 388.9

Best year 56.2 92.0 63.1 73.1 35.2 21.2 39.0 23.1 46.1 16.2 118.2 116.6 700.1

Worst year 19.7 47.7 44.0 43.0 11.0 5.9 4.7 3.7 3.7 15.7 22.4 28.3 249.7

For the future, the Consultant presumes that the average natural inflow in the Lake will be equal to the average calculated inflow based to the above table. Even if in statistical usual calculation the median is frequently applied, the average seems to be in this case a better option due to the compensation effect of the multi-annual calculation. The comparison between average and median values is shown in Picture 7.

11/29/2007


16

Picture 7 – Monthly variation of the Natural Inflow in Main Lake – in Mm3

Monthly Inflow in The Main Lake

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Mm

3

Average Median

The best year was 1955 with 700.064 Mm

3 inflows in the Main Lake representing 170% of

calculated average flow; the worst year was 1950 with 289.686 Mm3 inflows in the Main Lake

representing 61% of calculated average flow. The spread of real past values is enough small (-40%; +70%) to consider the average method allowable. The foreseen Natural Inflow in Main Lake accepted for the present simulation is shown in the Table 21. Table 21 – Natural Inflow in Main Lake – in Mm

3 and m

3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Mm3 26.966 36.212 51.773 69.660 61.600 33.498 21.090 11.459 13.577 17.025 29.014 38.850 410.724

m3 / s 10.07 14.97 19.33 26.88 23.00 12.92 7.87 4.28 5.24 6.36 11.19 14.50 13.02

12 Water balance in Main Lake The Inflow in the Main Lake is only the natural inflow calculated above as the average of 1948-1972 inflows. The normal Outflow from the Main Lake reefers to the Inflow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant and to the possible additional water by-passing the turbines to assure the Minimal Inflow in Secondary Reservoir. Tables 22 and 23 calculate the Balance in Main Lake Table 22 – Water Balance in Main Lake – in m

3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Inflow 10.07 14.97 19.33 26.88 23.00 12.92 7.87 4.28 5.24 6.36 11.19 14.50 13.02

Outflow 6.08 6.50 7.77 6.72 6.77 8.44 9.06 8.56 7.59 5.41 5.41 5.41 6.98

Balance 3.99 8.47 11.56 20.15 16.23 4.48 -1.19 -4.29 -2.35 0.94 5.78 9.09 6.04

Table 23 – Water Balance in Main Lake – in Mm3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Inflow 26.966 36.212 51.773 69.660 61.600 33.498 21.090 11.459 13.577 17.025 29.014 38.850 410.724

Outflow 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 14.028 14.496 220.158

Balance 10.686 20.499 30.955 52.229 43.464 11.620 -3.180 -11.478 -6.100 2.529 14.986 24.354 190.567

11/29/2007


17

In July, August and September the natural inflow is lower than the calculated outflow, but in other months the natural surplus in water is important. Considering the real volume of the Main Lake 365 Mm

3, the variation in water quantity in the Main

Lake is calculated in Table 24. Table 24 – Water Volume in Main Lake – in Mm

3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31

Start 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 361.820 350.343 344.243 346.772 361.758

End 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 361.820 350.343 344.243 346.772 361.758 365.000

The volume at the year start is considered maximal (365 Mm

3).

Between July and November, the volume of the lake is inferior to the maximal capacity but come back at the end of the year. The Picture 8 represents both variation in volume, inflows and outflows. Picture 8 – Main Lake Volume Variation, Inflow and Outflow – in Mm

3

Main Lake Content

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Mm

3

330.000

335.000

340.000

345.000

350.000

355.000

360.000

365.000

370.000

Mm

3

Content Inflow Outflow

The calculation considered that the maximal volume cannot be surpassed and, if arrive, the spillways will react to discharge the additional water.

13 Overflows balance and total discharges in Iber River The surplus in water discharged by the Main Lake Spillways is calculated in Tables 25 and 26. Table 25 – Water Surplus in Main Lake – in Mm

3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Inflow 26.966 36.212 51.773 69.660 61.600 33.498 21.090 11.459 13.577 17.025 29.014 38.850 410.724

Outflow 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 14.028 14.496 220.158

Balance 10.686 20.499 30.955 52.229 43.464 11.620 -3.180 -11.478 -6.100 2.529 14.986 24.354 190.567

Start 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 361.820 350.343 344.243 346.772 361.758

End 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 365.000 361.820 350.343 344.243 346.772 361.758 365.000

Surplus 10.686 20.499 30.955 52.229 43.464 11.620 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.112 190.567

11/29/2007


18

Table 26 – Water Surplus in Main Lake – in m3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Inflow 10.07 14.969 19.330 26.875 22.999 12.924 7.874 4.278 5.238 6.356 11.194 14.505 13.024

Outflow 6.078 6.495 7.772 6.725 6.771 8.441 9.061 8.563 7.591 5.412 5.412 5.412 6.981

Balance 3.990 8.474 11.557 20.150 16.228 4.483 -1.187 -4.285 -2.353 0.944 5.782 9.093 6.043

Surplus 3.990 8.474 11.557 20.150 16.228 4.483 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.882 6.043

Around 190 Mm3 of water surpass the needs of the system!

In fact, the surplus from the Main Lake enters in Secondary Reservoir and will be discharged in Iber River in addition to the Biological Minimal Flow and to normal discharge generated by the outflow from Hydro-Electric Power Plant. The total discharges in Iber River are presented in Table 27 and 28. Table 27 – Total Discharges in Iber River – in Mm

3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Useful discharge 1.901 2.709 6.439 3.403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.452

Surplus 10.686 20.499 30.955 52.229 43.464 11.620 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.112 190.567

Total 12.587 23.208 37.394 55.632 43.464 11.620 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.112 205.019

Table 28 – Total Discharges in Iber River – in m3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Useful discharge 0.710 1.120 2.404 1.313 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.458

Surplus 3.990 8.474 11.557 20.150 16.228 4.483 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.882 6.043

Total 4.700 9.593 13.961 21.463 16.228 4.483 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.882 6.501

Iber River receives a lot of non-used water and not only Biological Minimal Flow!

In addition the Main Canal has 25% losses, so the value of the non-used water in the system is higher (see Tables 29 and 30). Table 29 – Non-used Water – in Mm

3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Losses 3.260 2.949 3.260 3.183 4.199 5.146 5.733 5.399 4.595 3.289 3.183 3.289 47.484

Surplus 10.686 20.499 30.955 52.229 43.464 11.620 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.112 190.567

Total 13.946 23.448 34.215 55.412 47.663 16.766 5.733 5.399 4.595 3.289 3.183 24.401 238.051

% of Inflow 51.72% 64.75% 66.09% 79.55% 77.38% 50.05% 27.18% 47.12% 33.85% 19.32% 10.97% 62.81% 57.96%

Table 30– Non-used Water – in m3 / s


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Losses 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.57 1.99 2.14 2.02 1.77 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.51

Surplus 3.99 8.47 11.56 20.15 16.23 4.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.88 6.04

Total 5.21 9.69 12.77 21.38 17.80 6.47 2.14 2.02 1.77 1.23 1.23 9.11 7.55

The water use efficiency of the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System will be around 40%.

A very important reserve in water (in the Main Lake) seems to be an opportunity for the future development.

14 Sensitive variables: inflow in the Main Lake, water losses in the Main Canal, domestic consumption, water for irrigation

For the water equilibrium in Iber-Lepenc Hydro System, almost four variables are important:

11/29/2007


19

� Natural Inflow in the Main Lake (unique source of water); � Water losses in the Main Canal (real, physical losses); � Domestic consumption (impact to the social and political situation); � Water for irrigation (the initial scope of the canal).

The consumptions of power plants (including Kosovo C) are fixed by the technology. The sensitivity of domestic consumtion variation is very low because of the reduced weight in the total consumption. The population is a priority and must be provided first!

15 Sensitivity analysis

15.1 Variation of Natural Inflow in Main Lake

The variation of assumed average inflow can create problems in the system: the water volume in the lake can be inferior at the year end to at the year start and in time the lake will be empty. For the assumed hypotheses regarding consumption and losses (25%) the minimum natural inflow in the Main Lake can not be lower than 343 Mm

3 by year, representing 83.50% of the

average inflow. Table 31 explains in detail the limitation. Table 31 – Dependence of Water Balance to the Natural Inflow in the Main Lake

Inflow Variation

Main Lake Inflow (Mm

3)

Deficit (Mm3)

-50% 205.362 -50.000

-45% 225.898 -41.000

-40% 246.435 -33.000

-35% 266.971 -25.000

-30% 287.507 -18.000

-25% 308.043 -12.000

-20% 328.579 -5.000

-15% 349.116

-10% 369.652

-5% 390.188

0% 410.724

5% 431.261

10% 451.797

15% 472.333

20% 492.869

25% 513.405

30% 533.942

35% 554.478

40% 575.014

45% 595.550

50% 616.087

55% 636.623

60% 657.159

65% 677.695

70% 698.231

When the deficit appears, the inflow is not enough to compensate the outflow, and the Main Lake can emptying. Picture 9 – Dependence of Water Balance to the Natural Inflow in the Main Lake

11/29/2007


20

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Mm

3

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Mm

3

Main Lake Inflow (Mm3) Deficit (Mm3)

15.2 Variation of Losses in Main Canal

Starting to 80% of “nominal” losses (25%) the calculation takes into account 100% maximal increase (50% losses). Considering all other data unchanged, the maximum admissible losses can be 38.12% (87,756 Mm

3 lost). Over this limit the water balance of the Main Lake become

negative. Table 32 reefers to the losses variation Table 32 – Variation of Losses in Main Canal

Losses Variation

Losses (%) Losses (Mm3)

-20% 20.00% 35.613

-15% 21.25% 38.440

-10% 22.50% 41.357

-5% 23.75% 44.371

0% 25.00% 47.484

5% 26.25% 50.704

10% 27.50% 54.034

15% 28.75% 57.481

20% 30.00% 61.051

25% 31.25% 64.751

30% 32.50% 68.589

35% 33.75% 72.570

40% 35.00% 76.706

45% 36.25% 81.003

50% 37.50% 85.472

55% 38.75% 90.123

60% 40.00% 94.969

65% 41.25% 100.020

70% 42.50% 105.291

75% 43.75% 110.797

80% 45.00% 116.553

85% 46.25% 122.576

90% 47.50% 128.886

95% 48.75% 135.504

100% 50.00% 142.453

50% losses in main canal (this value seems to be surpassed by present losses) generate 142 Mm

3 water definitively non-recuperated!

Picture 10 – Variation of Losses in Main Canal

11/29/2007


21

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mm

3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Mm

3

Losses (%) Losses (Mm3)

15.3 Losses Variation and the Minimal Natural Inflow in the Main canal

The maximum losses in the Main Canal, necessary to not disturb definitively the water balance (calculated above for “nominal” values of the other inputs) depend of the losses level. Table 33 explains this dependence. Table 33 – Dependence of Minimum Natural Inflow in the Main Lake to the Losses in the Main Canal

Losses (%) Minimum

Inflow (Mm3)

Deficit (Mm3)

20% 322.994

21% 327.717

23% 332.646

24% 337.698

25% 342.955

26% 348.376

28% 353.962

29% 359.753

30% 365.791

31% 371.993

33% 378.482

34% 385.177

35% 392.119

36% 399.347

38% 406.864

39% 410.724 -2.000

40% 410.724 -4.000

41% 410.724 -7.000

43% 410.724 -10.000

44% 410.724 -13.000

45% 410.724 -16.000

46% 410.724 -19.000

48% 410.724 -23.000

49% 410.724 -26.000

50% 410.724 -30.000

The value of maximal losses for average conditions is confirmed (no more 38%). Picture 11 - Dependence of Minimum Natural Inflow in the Main Lake to the Losses in the Main Canal

11/29/2007


22

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

20% 23% 25% 28% 30% 33% 35% 38% 40% 43% 45% 48% 50%

Mm

3

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Mm

3

Minimum Inflow (Mm3) Deficit (Mm3)

15.4 Losses Variation and Irrigated Area

In the base assumptions, the Consultant supposed 10,000 ha of irrigated land. If other hypotheses still unchanged, this area can increase or decrease related to the losses in the main canal. The dependence is shown in Table 34. Table 34 – Irrigated Area and Losses in Main Canal

Losses (%) Irrigated Area Increase (%)

Irrigated Area (ha)

20% 160.00% 26,000

21% 148.90% 24,890

23% 137.90% 23,790

24% 126.90% 22,690

25% 115.80% 21,580

26% 104.80% 20,480

28% 93.80% 19,380

29% 82.70% 18,270

30% 71.70% 17,170

31% 60.70% 16,070

33% 49.60% 14,960

34% 38.60% 13,860

35% 27.60% 12,760

36% 16.50% 11,650

38% 5.50% 10,550

39% 10,000

40% 10,000

41% 10,000

43% 10,000

44% 10,000

45% 10,000

46% 10,000

48% 10,000

49% 10,000

50% 10,000

Even if the losses are 38% the irrigated area can increase with 15.80%, but in this case the water balance will have any reserve. The designed irrigated area (26,000 ha) can be served if the losses in the main canal are only 20%. Picture 12 – Dependence of Irrigated Area to the Losses in the Main Canal

11/29/2007


23

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

20% 23% 25% 28% 30% 33% 35% 38% 40% 43% 45% 48% 50%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

ha

Irrigated Area Increase (%) Irrigated Area (ha)

Reduction of losses is the way to irrigate more land!

16 Conclusions about water availability

� If the total losses in the canal are lower than 25%, the system can provide enough water to cover all consumers needs (as defined above).

� The conclusion is consistent for the inflows in the Main Lake taken into account in the

calculation.

� The reserve in water is effective: the annual inflow in the Main Lake can decrease from 410 Mm3 to around 322 Mm

3 without affect the consumers.

� Only in 5 years of 25 the inflow in the Main Lake was lower than 322 Mm

3 (probability

20%).

� Even in this case, in 4 or five years, the water missing in the Main Lake is compensating by additional inflow (see Figure 13).

11/29/2007


24

Picture 13 – Natural Inflow in the Main Lake (25 Years)

Annual Inflow in Main Lake

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Mm

3

� After a bad year, followed several good years, and the lack in water was compensated.

No one reason that these phenomena not repeat in the future.

� In the same time, is very important to use current flows compensation with spillways and additional water from Main Lake.

� For the present simulation the calculated spillways and additional water from Main Lake

flows are presented in Table 35. Table 35 – Additional Water from Main Lake and Discharges from Secondary Reservoir – in Mm

3


Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365

Additional Water from Main Lake

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.530 9.619 14.149 21.628 15.752 6.644 8.092 1.379 81.794

Spillway Secondary Reservoir

1.901 2.709 6.439 3.403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.452

Picture 14 – Additional Water from Main Lake and Discharges from Secondary Reservoir

Monthly operational flows

0

5

10

15

20

25


Mm

3

Main Lake Additional Water Secondary Reservoir Spillway

� In the first part of the year, the height energy production demand a large flow in the

Hydro-electric Power Plant and the water flow entering in Secondary Reservoir is too large to be absorbed by the consumers (the flow in Main Canal must be relatively low).

11/29/2007


25

� In the second part of the year, the water flow needed to produce electricity is lower than

the flow necessary to provide normal water quantity by the Main Canal.

� This lack of flow is compensated by the additional water from Main Lake, eluding the turbines.

Resuming:

Iber-Lepenc Hydro System is able to provide water for Kosovo C Power Plant in 2016 if:

⇒ The Main Canal is repaired to have maximum 25% losses;

⇒ At the end of the Main Canal will be build a Buffer Reservoir with corresponding capacity;

⇒ The water compensation in Secondary Reservoir is operated with accuracy;

⇒ The weather not changes very much and the rainfalls not decrease dramatically.

Other issues:

⇒ Re-pumping water in the Main Lake is a solution to increase the commercial efficiency of the energy production, but depends of markets conditions;

⇒ The overall water use efficiency still low (40%) and the system can provide more water for consumers (first priority irrigation, domestic).

NOTE: Detailed calculations of the values presented above in attached Flows and Balance.xls

17 Estimation of present losses in Main Canal Losses estimation is based on extended site visits during the two first missions of the Consultant team and on usual calculation of flows. Detailed sheets for all type A (trapezoidal section) sections of the canal are given in appendix. These sheets include photographs of salient parts of the canals, as well as main repairs (see § 18 hereafter ) Table 36 – Data Collected in Site Visits

Sheet Chainage

(Km) Type of canal Slab N° Type of loss

Estimated flow (l/s)

Picture N° Canal length

type A

SECTION INVESTIGATED ON NOVEMBER 9th 2007

1/2 0 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 537.65

Tunnel Pridvorice Covered canal / Tunnel 3 1.3 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 379.21

Covered canal C1

4 2.6 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 378.60

Tunnel Uglare Covered canals / Tunnel

11/29/2007


26

Aqueduct Radoviq 4.3 Aqueduct Damaged water stop joint? 1 359

Covered canal

5/5A 4, 6 (?) A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 108 Damaged slab 20 367 427.22 6/7/8/8A 5 (?) A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 1,316.00

Tunnel Varace (?) Tunnel

Aqueduct Varace? Aqueduct Damaged water stop joint? 1 369

9/9A 7.7 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 112 Drainage pipe (flowing) 50 404/ 7 832.22

Aqueduct Dvorishte? (?) Aqueduct + covered canal 10 8.8 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 292.63

Aqueduct Ornice Aqueduct

11 9.3 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Lower slabs 20 420 / 421 259.87

Aqueduct Zupce Covered canal /aqueduct

Tunnel Zupce Tunnel

Siphon Zupce 1 Siphon Tunnel Zupce2 Tunnel

Siphon Zupce 2 Siphon

Tunnel Zupce 3 Tunnel + covered canal

SECTION INVESTIGATED ON OCTOBER 9th 2007

12/13/14 11.5 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 235 Drainage pipe (flowing) 20 29 1,018.98

Aqueduct Koshtova Aqueduct

15 12.5 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) 5 Drainage pipe (flowing) 20 33 224.96

Siphon Koshtova Siphon

13.5 B3 (concrete walls) Tunnel Koshtova Tunnel

14.5 B3 (concrete walls)

Tunnel Lushta Tunnel

Covered canal


B6 (concrete walls) Wall 5 50 17 17 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) 78 Drainage pipe (flowing) 10 400.00

18 17.5 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) 128 Landslide 250 54 to 58 303.48

Siphon Siphon

19 18 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) 56 Drainage pipe (flowing) 10 61-62 400.00

20/21/22 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) 195/196 Bottom slabs 20 874.02 23 19.2 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 351.59

Aqueduct Xhosha Aqueduct Leakage (water stop) 5 75-76


Aqueduct Polja 20 Aqueduct Leakage (water stop + unauthorised pipe) 10 81

Aqueduct Gjosha A

25/26 20.4 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 432.53

Covered canal C2

Tunnel Verbnice Tunnel

Covered canal B7

27/28 22.3 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 791.47 Tunnel Miladin Tunnel


Aqueduct Leskove Aqueduct Leakage (water stop) 10 91-94

30/31/32 24 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 857.16

Aqueduct Krivotok Aqueduct Unauthorised pipe 10 96-97

33 25.1 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 68.03 Tunnel Mitkovic Tunnel

Aqueduct Mitkovic Aqueduct

SECTION INVESTIGATED ON OCTOBER 10th 2007

34 26.2 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 72 Drainage pipe (flowing) 5 106 400.00

35/36 26.6 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 200 Drainage pipe (flowing) 20 122 457.16

Aqueduct Mitkovic 27 Aqueduct Leakage (water stop) 5 125


27.6 Canal B7 Tunnel Bukoshka 28 Tunnel

Covered canal B9


40/41/42/43 29.7 A-4 (trapezoidal canal) 193 Drainage pipe (flowing) 3 151 1,438.39

Siphon Oblevik 29.5 Siphon

11/29/2007


27

Tunnel Nevolan Tunnel


Siphon Nevolan Siphon 45 33.3 A-5 (trapezoidal canal) 207.46

Aqueduct Kodra 33.5 Aqueduct Leakage (water stop) 10 162


Aqueduct Axhin Potok 34 Aqueduct Leakage (water stop) 30 173

47/48/49/50/51 34.2 A-5 (trapezoidal canal) 1,712.51 Aqueduct Cardak 35.9 Aqueduct Leakage (drilled hole) 30 189-190


Aqueduct Selan 36.5 Aqueduct Leakage (drilled hole) 30 195

53/54/55 37 A-6 (trapezoidal canal) 1,542.49

Tunnel Mihaliq Tunnel

Siphon Mihaliq 38.5 Siphon 56 38.7 A-6 (trapezoidal canal) 433.30

39.1 Canal B10

Siphon Vugoa Rupa Siphon

Covered canal

Siphon Ropok Potok Siphon

57 42.2 A-7 (trapezoidal canal) 377.95 Aqueduct Dedovac 42.6 Aqueduct

Siphon Zabel Siphon

Aqueduct Regula Aqueduct


Siphon Curillo 46.8 Siphon

Total length of type A canal 19,534.96

Total length of canal (southern part) 49,185.00

Table 37 - Estimation of Losses Based to the Above Data

Total estimated identified losses 595 l/s

Provision for unidentified losses (25%) 149 l/s

Other assumed losses to be added (losses through joints) 488 l/s

(250 joints per km x 5,00 ml of joint under water x 0,02 l/s/ml of joint)

Total losses in investigated part of the canal: (37,7 km) 1,232 l/s

Assumed average flow: (estimated water height: 1 m) 2.46 m3/s

Losses with the present flow: 50%

11/29/2007


28

Standard Calculations

Manning-Strickler formula:

Q = K S R^2/3 i^1/2 For smooth concrete lining: 75 to 90 Value considered: K = 80

Trapezoidal Canal

Wet surface S = (L + l) / 2 X H

Wet perimeter P = L + l + 2 x H / s

Hydraulic radius R = S / P = (L + l) / 2 X H / ( L + l + 2 x H / s)

Concrete lining K = 80

Section L (m) l (m) H (m) s S (m2) P (m) R (m) I (m) Q (m

3/s) V (m/s)

A1 5 2 1 0.67 3.50 10.61 0.33 0.00030 2.32 0.66

L

Freeboard: f

H

s = 1 V: 1.50 H s = 1 V: 1.50 H

l Water level in October 2007

11/29/2007


29

18 Estimation of cost for Main Canal repairs Using the exhaustive inspection of the main canal described above, the cost estimation for the repairs dissociates two categories:

⇒ Urgent repairs (can start immediately)

⇒ Less urgent repairs (can start only if the canal is emptying) Based to the current prices of materials and of labour in Balkans countries, and cross checking with the recently repairs works made by Iber Lepenc Enterprise, the Consultant propose the follow costs: Table 38 – Urgent repairs cost estimation

Phase I – Urgent repairs Unit Unit cost Unit

quantity Total

quantity Total cost

Drainage pipe leaking

Mobilisation Lump sum 5,000.00 1.00 8.00 40,000.00

Diversion of water m2 4.00 80.00 640.00 2,560.00

Pumping of water h 5.80 1,008.00 8,064.00 46,771.20

Removal of slabs u 100.00 15.00 120.00 12,000.00

Excavation m3 8.00 1,000.00 8,000.00 64,000.00

Laying of pipe dia 400 ml 80.00 50.00 400.00 32,000.00

Concrete wrapping m3 240.00 40.00 320.00 76,800.00

Culvert heads u 1,337.50 2.00 16.00 21,400.00

Laying and compacting fill material m3 14.00 950.00 7,600.00 106,400.00

Drainage layer under slab m2 15.00 120.00 960.00 14,400.00

Supply and place PVC m2 0.35 120.00 960.00 336.00

Supply and place wire mesh m2 4.00 120.00 960.00 3,840.00

Laying slabs u (= 1m3 = 8m

2) 190.00 15.00 120.00 22,800.00

SUB-TOTAL: 443,307.20

Slabs

Mobilisation Lump sum 5000 1.00 3.00 15,000.00 Diversion of water m

2 4 4.00 144.00 576.00

Pumping of water h 5.8 60.00 2,160.00 12,528.00

Breaking of concrete m2 12.5 8.00 288.00 3,600.00

Digging under slab m3 8 8.00 288.00 2,304.00

Laying and compacting fill material under slab m3 14 6.40 230.40 3,225.60

Drainage layer under slab m2 15 8.00 288.00 4,320.00


Supply and place wire mesh m2 4 8.00 288.00 1,152.00

Supply and place concrete m3 190 0.96 34.56 6,566.40

SUB-TOTAL: 49,372.80

Landslide


Access track, including site reinstatement Lump sum 10,000.00 1.00 1.00 10,000.00

Diversion of water m2 4.00 224.00 224.00 896.00

Pumping of water h 5.80 2,880.00 2,880.00 16,704.00

Removal of slabs u 100.00 60.00 60.00 6,000.00

General excavation m3 8.00 960.00 960.00 7,680.00

Excavation for pipe laying m3 8.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 14,400.00

11/29/2007


30

Laying of pipe dia 400 ml 80.00 300.00 300.00 24,000.00

Concrete wrapping m3 240.00 240.00 240.00 57,600.00

Culvert heads u 1,337.50 1.00 6.00 8,025.00

Backfilling m3 14.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 21,000.00

Drainage layer under slab m2 15.00 480.00 480.00 7,200.00


Supply and place wire mesh m2 4.00 480.00 480.00 1,920.00


2) 390.00 60.00 60.00 23,400.00

SUB-TOTAL: 203,993.00

Unauthorised pipe


Pumping of water h 5.80 168.00 168.00 974.40

Filling u 1,000.00 1.00 1.00 1,000.00

SUB-TOTAL 2,014.40

Drilled hole


Pumping of water h 5.80 168.00 336.00 1,948.80

Filling u 1,000.00 1.00 2.00 2,000.00

SUB-TOTAL 4,028.80

Reconditioning of track


Km 26 m 20.00 0.50 428.58 8,571.60

Km 32 m 20.00 0.50 59.02 1,180.30

Km 33 m 20.00 0.50 196.29 3,925.90

SUB-TOTAL 683.89 22,677.80

Crest ditch

Mobilisation Lump sum 5,000.00 1.00 1.00 5,000.00 Km 27 Excavation for levelling m

3 8.00 1.00 250.00 2,000.00

Digging ditch m 8.00 0.50 125.00 1,000.00

Concrete lining m 190.00 0.20 50.00 9,500.00

SUB-TOTAL 17,500.00

TOTAL PHASE I 739,850.80

Table 39 – Less urgent repairs cost estimation

Phase II – Less urgent repairs Unit Unit cost Unit

quantity Total

quantity Total cost

Drainage pipe leaking

Removal of slabs u 100.00 15.00 0.00 0.00

Excavation m3 4.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00

Laying of pipe diameter 400 m 80.00 50.00 0.00 0.00

Concrete wrapping m3 240.00 40.00 0.00 0.00

Backfilling m3 6.00 950.00 0.00 0.00


2) 445.00 15.00 0.00 0.00

SUB-TOTAL: 0.00

Slabs

Mobilisation Lump sum 1,000.00 1.00 27.10 27,100.00 Diversion of water

canal empty m

2 0.00 500.00 135,500.00 0.00

Pumping of water canal empty

h 0.00 360.00 97,560.00 0.00

11/29/2007


31

Breaking of concrete m2 12.50 8.00 2,168.00 27,100.00

Digging under slab m3 8.00 8.00 2,168.00 17,344.00

Laying and compacting fill material under slab m3 14.00 6.40 1,734.40 24,281.60

Drainage layer under slab m2 15.00 8.00 2,168.00 32,520.00

Supply and place PVC m2 0.35 8.00 2,168.00 758.80

Supply and place wire mesh m2 4.00 8.00 2,168.00 8,672.00

Supply and place concrete m3 190.00 0.96 260.16 49,430.40

SUB-TOTAL: 187,206.80

Walls (aqueducts, concrete canals)

Mobilisation Lump sum 3,000.00 1.00 9.00 27,000.00 Water stop m 20.00 10.00 90.00 1,800.00

Additional concrete m3 455.00 10.00 90.00 40,950.00

SUB-TOTAL 69,750.00

Joints

Joint preparation m 1.00 12.80 62,511.87 62,511.87

Joint laying m 2.00 12.80 62,511.87 125,023.74

SUB-TOTAL 187,535.62

Track

Km 16,5


Excavation m3 2.50 8.00 827.18 6,617.40

Filling with compacted material m3 14.00 1.50 496.31 6,948.27

Supply and laying of material m3 20.00 0.50 163.78 3,275.61

SUB-TOTAL 19,841.28

TOTAL PHASE II 464,333.70

Table 40 – Main canal repairs (cost estimation)

Phase I % of

losses % of total

cost Urgent repairs

Active slide repair (Km 17) 20% 17% 203,993

Drainage pipes (leaking): 8 locations 11% 37% 443,307

Slabs (36 units) 5% 4% 49,373

Filling up drilled holes and unauthorized pipes (3 places) 6% 1% 6,043

Track reconditioning (684 ml : Km 26,32,33) 2% 22,678

Crest ditch (250 ml : Km 27) 1% 17,500 SUB-TOTAL 42% 62% 742,894

Phase II (canal empty) % of

losses % of total

cost Less urgent repairs

Slabs (271 slabs) 12% 16% 187,207

Track building (331 ml : Km 16,5) 2% 19,841

Repairing leakages in concrete walls (9 waterstop joints) 6% 6% 69,750

Joints laying (4884 ml) 40% 16% 187,536 SUB-TOTAL 58% 38% 464,334

GRAND TOTAL 1,207,228

Some repairs should also be carried out in the main Gazivode dam, such as reconditioning the track on top of the dam.

11/29/2007


32

More detailed terms of reference for additional studies (detailed design) are given in appendix.

19 Estimation of costs for Buffer Basin In order to ensure a continuous and guaranteed water flow to Kosovo B and future Kosovo C Power Plants, it is proposed to build a buffer basin which should preferably be located nearby Bevolaq pumping station, about 5 km from the end of Iber Lepenc Main Canal. In order to be able to store a two weeks demand for Kosovo B (and future Kosovo C) Power Plants, it was computed that a 2 million m3 capacity buffer basin is required. Assuming the feasibility (to be checked in details) of a 5 m deep basin (water level – invert level), and based on standard costs for such works (dykes), a preliminary estimate of a 400,000 m2 Buffer basin was computed : costs would be between 7,7 and 11,6 millions Euros, depending mostly on the availability of materials for the dykes. More detailed terms of reference for additional studies (detailed design) are given in appendix.

20 Water tariffs to cover investment costs In 2006, Iber Lepenc Enterprise water revenue was mainly generated by Kosovo B Power Plant (573 M€) and by drinking water companies (256 M€). For the first time the company invoiced consumption for population. Table 41 – Iber Lepenc Enterprise revenue

Revenue (€) 2004 2005 2006

Kosovo A Power Plant 37,936 Kosovo B Power Plant 529,458 514,422 573,435

Other Industry Water Companies 256,611

Agriculture (irrigation) 52,565 54,748 65,928

Total Water Revenue 619,959 569,170 895,974

In ILE’s records, Kosovo A Power Plant and other industry not figure like consumers in 2006 (even if some water provided by ILE was used by industry). Table 42 – Tariffs

Tariffs 2004 2005 2006

Kosovo A Power Plant 0.0514 €/m3

Kosovo B Power Plant 0.05 €/m3 0.05 €/m

3 0.05 €/m

3

Other Industry

Water Companies 0.0158 €/m3

Agriculture (irrigation) 0.0422 €/m3 0.0308 €/m

3 0.0256 €/m

3

The tariff for agriculture is calculated, in fact ILE use 100 €/ha. For example, equivalent tariff in 2006 was: 100 €/ha tariff / 3,851 m

3/ha calculated water consumption = 0.0256 €/m

3.

11/29/2007


33

The tariff for water companies and the tariff for agriculture (irrigation) seem to be subsidized by the Power Plants. But, is possible that electricity production subsidies all water distribution activity (more population and agriculture and less power plants).

In ILE’s accountancy operational costs, generated by water distribution or by electricity production are not separated and is not possible to distribute with accuracy the expenses between the two main activities (or between different water consumers), and to have a more detailed evaluation of the amount of the subsidies.

In the near future is necessary to create almost two costs centres in ILE: Energy Production and Water Distribution to have the possibility to know real costs for the two main commercial activities.

In the present is not clear if water tariffs cover all expenses generated by water distribution or part of these expenses is covered by the production of electricity. The inadequate cost registration by ILE’s accountancy is more evident if the depreciation (non cash cost) is taken into account. In the past three years analyzed (2004 – 2006), the company has a comfortable gross margin (between 1 and 1.8 million € each year) proving that the sales revenue covered all operational costs. In the same time, the gross financial result was strongly negative (between 3 and 5 million €). As a result, the cash in hand was consistent (0.6 – 2.8 million €), in the last two years allocated mainly to several investments and repairs. Without investments (in canal repairs and in buffer basin) Kosovo C cannot be provided in water and the losses in main canal will increase (assumed losses 60% in 2012 and 75% in 2021). With these assumptions (very possible), to have a minimal net profit the tariffs must be:

⇒ 62.13 € / MWh if only electricity tariff is increase (water tariff 0.05 € / m3);

⇒ 0.19 € / m3 if only water tariff increase (electricity tariff 21.51 € / MWh);

⇒ 0.11 € / m3 and 44.50 € / MWh if both two tariffs growth.

No one of above structure of tariffs are affordable for the industrial consumers (the water tariffs for population and agriculture still are unchanged) or for the energy market! If the calculated and non distributed depreciation of fixed assets is included in the tariffs, the resulting tariffs become too height. The proposed costs centres must separate not only operational expenses, but also the non cash costs like depreciation. Present level of depreciation seems to be fictional, based to a bookkeeping revaluation. (Fore more detailed description of the situation in this possible case, see attached Model ILE without investments.xls)

To avoid amplifying this situation, the investment costs will be allocated only to the activity which is affected by the investment.

The additional costs, generated by the investments in main canal and in buffer basin (if the owner will be ILE) will affect only the tariff for non-domestic consumers (power plants and other industry). These consumers are directly involved in the investment. The tariffs for domestic consumers and farmers still are the unchanged.

11/29/2007


34

20.1 Increase in tariff due to the repairs of the main canal

Overall repairs works to the main canal are split in two phases: Phase I – cost 742,894 € can be finished in 2008; Phase II – cost 464,334 € possible to finish in 2010. To start phase II is necessary to can stop the water distribution for a long period (several weeks). So it is compulsory to have the buffer basin complete. The additional revenue (obtained by increasing the tariff) during 25 years must cover the total cost of the repairs. If the phase I will be financed by a grant, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets in the same 25 years. The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00043 €/m

3.

When the phase I is financed by own sources of ILE, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets and to company’s expenses for the repairs. The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00096 €/m

3.

If the phase II will be financed by a grant, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets in the same 25 years. The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00025 €/m

3.

If the phase II will be financed by own sources of ILE, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets and to company’s expenses for the repairs. The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00058 €/m

3.

In conclusion, to cover all the costs of the repairs of the main canal, the tariff for water delivered for industry (including power plants) must increase between 0.00068 €/m

3 (if the investment is

financed by a grant) and 0.00154 €/m3 (if ILE finance itself the repairs).

The increase is not large, the total tariff for industrial water consumers will be around 0.051 €/m3

(0.05 €/m3 in 2006).

20.2 Increase in tariff due to the construction of the buffer basin

If the buffer basin will be in the property of ILE, the increase in tariff must cover the total investment costs (own sources involved, loan service and depreciation). Considering that the basin will be constructing in two years (2008 - 2009) and the capital expenditure is around 10 million €, the increase in water tariff for industrial clients must be:

⇒ Investment financed by own sources of ILE The increase in tariff to cover total cost of the investment is 0.023 €/m

3. The increase is not

enough to have positive cash in hand in 2008 and 2009. ILE’s capacity to create cash for investment can be restored only if the tariff increase with 0.1185 €/m

3.

11/29/2007


35

This case is not affordable, because of height increase in tariff.

⇒ Investment financed 50% by loan and 50 % by own sources The increase in tariff to cover total cost of the investment is 0.0266 €/m

3. The increase is enough

to have positive cash in hand in the next 25 years. The loan conditions taken into account are: loan duration 15 years, grace period 3 years, interest 7%, commitment fee 1%, front end fee 1%.

The final tariff for industrial clients will be around 0.08 €/m3.

The difference between Variant I and Variant II Kosovo C construction is insignificant regarding additional tariffs involved by the investments in main canal repairs or in buffer basin. ILE is able to finance the investment in buffer basin, using a loan to cover incentive gap in cash created by the capital expenditure in 2008 and 2009.

Possible optimal investment scenario is: Repairs of the main canal – Phase I – 2008 – financed by grant Repairs of the main canal – Phase II – 2010 – financed by ILE’s own sources Buffer basin construction – financed 50% by loan and 50% by ILE’s own sources

The financial forecasts for Iber Lepenc Enterprise for this scenario are shown in the following tables:

11/29/2007


36

Variant I of Kosovo C construction

Profit & loss account (€) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Kosovo A Power Plant 36,936 473,131 478,059 482,988 487,916 492,845 492,845 492,845

Kosovo B Power Plant 579,536 1,655,958 1,673,207 1,690,457 1,707,707 1,724,956 1,724,956 1,724,956Other Industry 473,131 956,119 1,448,963 1,951,665 2,464,223 2,464,223 2,464,223

Water Companies 270,867 262,953 254,815 246,452 237,865 229,054 229,054 229,054

Agriculture (irrigation) 65,000 220,833 220,833 220,833 220,833 220,833 220,833 220,833

Kosovo C Power Plant 936,405 1,872,810 1,872,810Revenue from Water Distribution 952,340 3,086,006 3,583,033 4,089,693 4,605,986 6,068,315 7,004,720 7,004,720

Hydro Power Plant 2,255,696 2,255,696 2,255,696 2,255,696 2,255,696 2,255,696 2,255,696 2,255,696Revenue from Core Business 3,208,036 5,341,702 5,838,730 6,345,389 6,861,682 8,324,012 9,260,417 9,260,417

Other Revenue 173,010 173,010 173,010 173,010 173,010 173,010 173,010 173,010Total Revenue 3,381,046 5,514,712 6,011,740 6,518,399 7,034,692 8,497,022 9,433,427 9,433,427

Labour 1,635,612 1,635,612 1,635,612 1,635,612 1,635,612 1,635,612 1,635,612 1,635,612

Maintenance & Repairs 86,230 86,230 462,231 478,483 478,483 478,483 478,483 478,483

Electricity 85,083 146,202 167,492 188,031 207,819 257,257 287,657 287,657Materials 34,225 58,810 67,374 75,636 83,596 103,482 115,711 115,711

Bad Debts Expenses 534,170 583,873 634,539 686,168 832,401 926,042 926,042

Other Operational Expenses 232,056 232,056 232,056 232,056 232,056 232,056 232,056 232,056Total Operational Expenses 2,073,206 2,693,080 3,148,638 3,244,357 3,323,734 3,539,291 3,675,561 3,675,561

Gross Margin 1,307,840 2,821,632 2,863,101 3,274,042 3,710,958 4,957,731 5,757,866 5,757,866

Depreciation 6,090,230 6,090,230 6,627,375 6,650,591 6,650,591 6,650,591 6,650,591 6,650,591Grant Amortization 34,173 34,173 34,173 34,173 34,173 EBIT -4,782,390 -3,268,598 -3,730,100 -3,342,376 -2,905,460 -1,658,688 -858,553 -858,553

Interest 186,875 301,875 402,500 385,729 352,188 318,646 285,104EBT -4,782,390 -3,455,473 -4,031,975 -3,744,876 -3,291,190 -2,010,875 -1,177,198 -1,143,657

Income Tax Net Profit / Loss -4,782,390 -3,455,473 -4,031,975 -3,744,876 -3,291,190 -2,010,875 -1,177,198 -1,143,657

Iber Lepenc Enterprise will have financial losses until 2016, when Kosovo C Power Plant will work with full capacity. The historical depreciation of fixed assets (6,090,230 €) strongly affect the final efficiency (the gross margin is positive every year, proving that ILE operations are efficient). In the same time, this depreciation generates important cash in hand.

11/29/2007


37

Balance sheet (€) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Existing fixed assets 79,273,465 73,183,235 67,093,005 61,002,775 54,912,545 48,822,315 42,732,085 36,641,855

New fixed assets 6,030,039 10,904,037 10,999,335 10,607,082 10,214,829 9,822,576 New intangible assets 574,289 913,146 791,471 623,363 455,254 287,146 Non-current assets net value 79,273,465 79,787,563 78,910,188 72,793,581 66,142,989 59,492,398 52,841,807 46,191,215

Inventory 676,048 640,547 1,126,841 990,796 826,770 669,058 628,805

Trade receivable 2,566,596 2,785,147 2,993,897 3,152,870 3,220,875 3,263,181 3,396,508

Advance payments 165,446 181,362 292,747 276,247 252,547 236,268 245,670 Cash and cash equivalent 3,895,380 3,700,573 2,794,179 5,236,345 8,317,017 12,826,529 17,869,075 22,853,747 Current assets 7,303,471 7,307,629 7,207,664 9,656,259 12,617,210 16,995,037 22,140,059 27,191,087

Assets 86,576,936 87,095,192 86,117,852 82,449,839 78,760,199 76,487,435 74,981,865 73,382,302

Share capital 113,454,835 113,454,835 113,454,835 113,454,835 113,454,835 113,454,835 113,454,835 113,454,835

Retained earning -28,414,299 -31,869,771 -35,901,746 -39,646,622 -42,937,812 -44,948,687 -46,125,885 -47,269,542

Grants received 408,495 408,495 408,495 408,495 408,495 408,495 408,495 Equity 85,449,031 81,993,559 77,961,584 74,216,708 70,925,518 68,914,643 67,737,445 66,593,788

Loan 712,138 3,587,138 6,462,138 5,982,971 5,503,805 5,024,638 4,545,471 Non-current liabilities 854,328 820,155 785,982 751,809 717,636 683,462

Advances received 712,138 4,441,466 7,282,293 6,768,953 6,255,613 5,742,274 5,228,934

Trade payables 185,263 332,394 395,292 464,324 539,648 698,385 832,783

Tax payables 137,872 161,577 281,037 288,525 290,429 303,773 315,861

Short term part of the loan 92,631 166,197 197,646 232,162 269,824 349,193 387,675 Current liabilities 415,766 660,168 873,976 1,464,178 1,579,067 1,830,518 2,015,487

Equity & liabilities 86,576,936 87,095,192 86,117,852 82,449,839 78,760,199 76,487,435 74,981,865 73,382,302

Sources and utilizations (€) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Retained earnings

Depreciation & provisions 6,090,230 6,090,230 6,627,375 6,650,591 6,650,591 6,650,591 6,650,591 6,650,591 6,601,520

Grants received 854,328 Disbursements of new loans 2,875,000 2,875,000

Decrease in working capital 45,436 104,607 234,610 383,135 82,493 Total sources 6,090,230 9,864,994 9,502,375 6,755,198 6,885,202 7,033,727 6,733,085 6,650,591 6,664,891

Loss 4,782,390 3,455,473 4,031,975 3,744,876 3,291,190 2,010,875 1,177,198 1,143,657

Capital expenditure 6,604,328 5,750,000 533,984 Loans repayment 479,167 479,167 479,167 479,167

Grants amortization 34,173 34,173 34,173 34,173 34,173 34,173

Increase in working capital 220,010 592,621 8,923

Total utilizations 5,002,399 10,059,801 10,408,769 4,313,033 3,804,529 2,524,215 1,690,538 1,665,920

Net cash 1,087,831 -194,806 -906,394 2,442,166 3,080,672 4,509,512 5,042,546 4,984,672 5,890,642

Cash in hand & equivalent 3,895,380 3,700,573 2,794,179 5,236,345 8,317,017 12,826,529 17,869,075 22,853,747 28,744,389

For detailed calculation and forecasts see attached Model ILE.xls.

water supply study krpp

Documents

water balance

water flow

water supply

water losses

water tariffs

canal main quantity

water of gazivode lake

hydroelectric power