1 - Bawgata HPP - FINAL PFS Report - Vol 1 Final Report E02 - W K and B Summaries - 2017-09-19

NVE/ Thoolei Company Ltd
Bawgata Hydropower Project

Pre-feasibility Study
Final Report
Volume I – Main Report
Assignment no.: 5161926 Document no.: 09 Version: E02

2017-09-19
Bawgata Hydropower Project Pre-Feasibility Study | Final Report
Client: NVE/ Thoolei Company Ltd

Client’s Contact Person: David A. Wright, Daw Hsit Hsar
Consultant: Norconsult AS, Vestfjordgaten 4, NO-1338 Sandvika
Assignment Manager: Kjartan Gullbrå
Technical Advisor: Harald Reite, Kevin C. Burton
Other Key Personnel: Jan Idar Kollstrøm, Kate Meadows, Eirik Bjerke Thorsen, Sondang N.
Napitupulu, Francoise Bigillon, Knut Gjermundrød, Frank Isachsen
Frontpage: Waterfall in Bawgata River (Photo: Paul Christen Røhr, NVE)
E02 2017-09-19 Final Pre-feasibility Report Volume 1 KjGul/ HR/ KG/ HR/KjGul KjGul
with Karen and Burmese Exec. FB/ / FrIsa/ /
summaries SNNap /KCB
E01 2017-06-23 Final Pre-feasibility Report Volume 1 KjGul/ HR/ KG/ HR/KjGul KjGul
FB/ / FrIsa/ /
SNNap /KCB
D01 2017-02-21 Draft Pre-feasibility Report Volume 1 KjGul/ HR/ KG/ SEd/ HR KjGul
FB/ / FrIsa/ /
SNNap /KCB
Version Date Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by
This document has been prepared by Norconsult AS as a part of the assignment identified in the document. Intellectual property
rights to this document belong to Norconsult AS. This document may only be used for the purpose stated in the contract
between Norconsult AS and the Client, and may not be copied or made available by other means or to a greater extent than the
intended purpose requires.
x:\nor\project\m\myanmar\5161926 - bawgata prefeasibility study 2016\05_workforlders\03a final pfs report\including 2017-06-23 | Page 2 of 146
translations\final word files\bawgata pre-feasibility study final report e01_final_w k and b summaries_2017-09-19.docx
Executive Summary
Norconsult AS has been engaged by Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) to
conduct a Pre-feasibility Study of Bawgata Hydropower Project in Myanmar. The end-client for the
Pre-feasibility Study is Thoolei Company Ltd.
The Pre-feasibility Report summarizes the Consultant’s findings during the site visit and his evaluation
of development of Bawgata Hydropower Project in general. The conceptual layouts for different
options are presented and used as basis for cost estimates and project evaluation. It should be noted
that the Pre-feasibility Study is based on available maps in scale 1: 50 000 only. An ESIA Scoping
study has been conducted in parallel to this pre-feasibility study and is presented in a separate report.
Bawgata River lies in Bago Region in Eastern Myanmar. The section of the river most feasible for
hydropower development stretches approximately 16 kms from Mu Thea Village at elevation 580
masl. down to elevation 40 about 12 km upstream Bawgata Auk Village.
During the course of the study there has been two site visits to the project site, one in May 2016 and
one in December 2016. Following the first site visit, various options for development of the river were
assessed, including both a seasonal (large) and a run-of-river reservoir. Based on this initial
assessment, it was recommended to put the option with a large reservoir aside, and continue the
study with three different development scenarios, all with an upper run-of river (smaller) reservoir:
a. A one-step development option with one large hydropower plant

b. A two-step development option with two projects in cascade
c. A three-step development option with three projects in cascade
The hydrological analysis is based on meteorological and hydrological data from nearby catchments.
The neighbouring Shwegyin River has a long term (30 years+) discharge measurement record.
However, the analysis reveals that this discharge record seem to have systematic errors. Other
available discharge measurement records (Zaungtu, Bago) are from catchments with very different
characteristics than Bawgata. Therefore, the annual mean discharge used for production estimates
are derived from water balance based on long term precipitation data. The catchments have been
calculated based on a map analysis. This gives the following catchments and annual mean flows for
the various project options:
Description Unit Upper dam Middle dam Lower dam

site (all site (3-Step site (2- and
options) option) 3-Step option)
Catchment area km2 145.6 207.0 233.7

Mean Annual Inflow m3/s 11.76 16.72 18.88
To describe the geological conditions, the geologist has conducted a regional geological analysis and
an observatory site visit (no ground investigations). Based on this, the project area is believed to be
located in Mesozoic geological age rock types consisting of granites, granodiorites, and diorite. The
project area lies near to several active fault zones, Sagaing fault and Papun faults being the most
influential, where major earthquakes have occurred. Following this, the project area will be prone to
earthquake loading and the implication for structures and risk for landslide needs to be considered. In
view of the preliminary observation made at site, all alternatives seems to be technically feasible from
a geological perspective, with a normal degree of difficulty for tunnelling. Further investigations will be
needed in the subsequent project phases to confirm the geological conditions in detail.
Following a conceptual design of all project options, a preliminary optimization have been carried out
to determine the optimal plant size (maximum generation capacity in MW). This optimization
concluded that an installed capacity with a maximum turbine flow corresponding to about 2,0 x Mean
Annual Flow is considered as the optimum installation. This ratio has been used for all alternatives
studied.
Based on the preliminary design with the plant capacity as indicated above, cost estimates have been
developed for all project alternatives. Cost rates used in the estimates are developed from Norwegian
Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) cost base for hydropower plants. The cost rates have
been adjusted to reflect unit rates and equipment costs obtained from other recent projects in the
region.
The annual energy production is estimated based on the optimum plant capacity together with the
inputs from the hydrological analysis including mean annual flow and duration curves derived from
estimated daily flow data.
The projects have been evaluated by an economic and financial analysis. These analyses are a based
on an energy tariff of 7.0 USc/kWh.
The table below shows a summary of total energy production, total capital cost, and calculated
economic and financial indicators for the three main development options.
Description Unit 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step

Development Cascade Cascade
Development Development
Total installed
capacity MW 105 125 133
Energy production GWh 341.5 406.1 431.8
Capital cost mill. USD 197.1 239.4 239.4
Economic IRR % 9.1 8.9 9.9
Equity IRR % 8.7 8.5 9.5
Comparison between all alternative hydropower projects studied as stand-alone projects shows that
the lower project in the 3-Step cascade development has the highest Economic IRR of 10.5 %. The 3-
Step Lower Power Plant has the highest Equity IRR with 13.2 % of all alternatives studied as stand-
alone projects.
The table below shows the salient features for the three projects in a 3-Step Cascade Development:
Main Data
Description
Lower PP Middle PP Upper PP
Gross Head m 160 100 270
Maximum Turbine Flow (2 units) m3/s 37.76 33.44 23.52
Total Installed Capacity MW 51 28 54
Mean Annual Production GWh 165.5 90.7 175.6
Dam type Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC
• Highest Regulated Water Level masl 200 300 570
Headrace
• Tunnel Cross section m2 26 22 22
• Tunnel Length m 1850 2800 4300
• Penstock above ground m 360 350 880
Powerhouse above ground
• Turbine type Francis Francis Francis
• Tailwater level masl 40 200 300
Capital cost mill. USD 83.7 64.9 90.9
Economic IRR % 10.5 7.1 10.2
Equity IRR % 13.2 6.6 12.7
The construction period for the lower 3-Step project is estimated to 36 months.
To address sustainability issues, a preliminary study on the social context of the Project was carried
out. This was supplemented by an environmental and social scoping of issues to identify any potential
fatal flaws with the Project at this initial stage.
The studies revealed a highly complex and dynamic socio-economic and political environment in the
Project area, but given the minimal direct impact on existing settlement and productive land there were
no social issues of sufficient magnitude to militate against development providing international best
practice in public consultation and disclosure is adhered to.
Although at one time the Project area would have contained significant numbers of small and large
mammal species these have largely now been displaced; any remnant populations are at risk but far
more so from existing deforestation, logging and mining activities. The fishery in the Project area is
reported to be in decline, which would likely be exacerbated by the Project; the extent to which this is
a biodiversity issue rather than a species population numbers issue will need to be further studied at
ESIA stage when the Project moves forward.
Recommendation
In conclusion, it is recommended to study the 3-Step cascade development further as an initial part of
a feasibility study to confirm the number and layout of power plants forming the best cascade
development of Bawgata River.
After confirming the conceptual layout of a cascade development, it is recommended to carry out a full
feasibility study of the most promising power plant alternative in the selected cascade development.
The lower power plant alternative appears to be the most attractive alternative from a topographical
point of view and will for the same reason most likely be identical for all cascade developments
proposed. As this alternative also has the best financial performance of all alternatives studied, it is
assumed that this project is the best candidate project to be studied at the feasibility level.
Figure: The recommended 3-step development option
Executive Summary (S’gaw Karen Language)
w>ymzsgusXRwH>
bDux.xH*H>o[D.w>wdmusJRtHRb.w>ymzSd.'k;td.xD.tDRvX ed.ud.pJth.tJ;(Norconsult AS)
'D;eD.0hxH*H>xH;'D;*H>o[D.w>yXqSXu&X(Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate-NVE)
vXuD>yHR,DR< yudvD>u0DRtylRvDRI w>vXCkxH.oh.ngwz.tHR vXcHub.w>pl;ugtDRvX
olvhcDyeH.vH.rH;wJ;vDRI
ySR[h.ul.w>wz.M. cHuG>pDRuG>0J bDux.xH*H>o[D.w>wdmusJRtw>td.o;wz.'D; teD.up> '.0JvJR0Jql

w>wdmusJRw>vD>w>usJRwz.'D; ymzsgxD.uhR0J tw>xH.wz.'D; w>Ckoh.ng tqduwX>wz.M.vDRI
w>cHuG>pDRuG>w>wdmusJR< usdmphw>vXmbl.vXmph'D; usdRusJ vDRqDwz. vXtxH.0JvX-
uX;b.0Jwz.M.ymzsgxD.0Jph>uD;vDRI w>vJRcHuG>pDRuG>tylR [D.cd.*DR 'D;w>csX w>xd.w>'G; tpuhrh>0J
1rHxX.M. tq; (50000rHxX.)vDRI MqX.cd.CXRw>b.'db.xH;'D; w>b.xGJ &hvdmvD>u0DRtvJ>
wz.tHRb.w>Ckoh.ngtDRph>uD;vXw>Ckoh.ngtqduwX>tHRtylRM.vDRI
bDux.xHusdtd.ol.vDRto;vXuD>yHR,DRrk>xD.wcDzJyudvD>u0DRtylRM.vDRI w>wdmusJRtHR td.
ol.vDRto;vX w>vD>t*hRt-uX;uwX>wwDR vXt,HR'D; rk>oJo0D16cHvd.rHxX.< yD.vJ.
trJmzH;cd.tzDcd.yh.40<'D; rh>vJRu'D;12cHvd.rHxX.M. w>wdmusJRtzDcd.wwDRtylR td.'D;bDux.
vmcDo0Dwz.vDRI
2016eH.< vgrhRwkRvg'H>phbX.M. w>vJRuG>w>wdmusJRtvD>(2)wDRvDRI zJ2016eH.vgrhRM.wwDR<
2016eH.vg'H>phbX.M. wwDR cJvXmymzSd.w>wdmusJRtvD> cHwDR b.w>vJRCkxH.oh.ngtDRvDRI
w>vJRtcD.xH;wbsDtylR w>CkxH.M>w>vD>w>usJvXt-uX;tb.wz.< 'fxHusd,GRvDRtod; w>vD>vXt-
uX;tb.'D;t*hRM.b.w>CkxXtDRvDRI w>vD>tHRb.rh>w>vD>z;vJ>'D; ymzSd.xHoh
ud;uwD>'J;'D;xHub.,GRvDRxDbdM.vDRI w>uG>CkxH.M>tqdwz.tHRymzsgxD.tod; w>[h.ul. xD. vX
uCkxXw>vD>z;vJ>vXtymzSd.xHohwwDRCkm'D; w>wdmusJRtd.'D; w>rRtqD(3)qD< vXx;cDM.td.'D;
xHwtX.w>vD>w>usJrhwrh>w>ymzSd.xHtvD>vXxH,GRvDRxDbdwwDRM.vDRI
(u)w>rRtusdRtusJvXttd.'D;tqDwqD'D;xH*H>o[D.w>wdmusJRw>rRz;'d.
(c)w>rRtusdRtusJvXttd.'D;tqDcHcD'D;w>wdmusJRcHcgvXxHvDRql
(*)w>rRtusdRtusJvXttd.'D;tqDoXqD'D;w>wdmusJRoXcgvXxHvDRql
xHwdmuDRtuydmuyRw>vD>w>usJRwz.t rlcd.uvHRoD.*DRw>td.o; 'D;xH*H>o[D.t*h>tusdR wz.

b.w>uG>tDR'D; yJmxHeDRz;M>tDRvDRI vX tuydmuyRwcD &U.uFh.usdtd.ol.to;
teH.oXqHvHM.b.w>ymzsgCmtDRvDRI pDwl.'D;yud w>wdmusJR tylR w>xd.eD.wJ.eD. w>CkxH.
oh.ngwz.M. vDRqDvdmo;'D; bDux.xH*H>o[D.w>wdmusJRvXuh>*DR'D; xHwtX. w>vD> w>usJwz.M.vDRI
tCd xH*H>xH;t*h>tusdRwz.tHR b.w>oMRtDR'D; xd.'G;M> xHxG;xD. tywD>'D;
weH.tylRw>xk;xD.xHuohxJvJ.M. b.w>ymzsgxD.tDRvDRI xHwtX.tvD> wz.M.
b.w>xd.'G;tDRvX[D.cd.*DRtw>ymzsgvXw>CkxH.oh.ngCmtod;vDRI xHtd.wtX.to; vD>u0DR'D;
weH.twD>ylRxH,GRvDRtywD>'D;usdRusJwbsK;cgvXw>upl;ugtDRt*D>b.w>ymzsgvXtzDvmvDRI
w>*h>w>usdR ,leH xHwdmuDRtzDcd.w>vD>w>u xHwdmuDRtcX.o;w>vD>w>u xHwdmuDRtzDvmw>vD>w>u

; sJ(usdRusJvXtrRtDRohwz.) sJ(usdRusJvXw>rRtqDoXqD) sJ (usdRusJvXw>rRtqD2qD'D;
3qD)
xHwtX. Km2 ၁၄၅.၆ ၂၀၇.၀ ၂၃၃.၇
tvD>tusJ
ud;eH.'J;xHEkmvD m3/s ၁၁.၇၆ ၁၆.၇၂ ၁၈.၈၈
RtywD>
[D.'GJyDngySRul.ohul.b.wz. vJRuG>Ckoh.ng0J MqX.w>uJxD.o; 'D; ymzsgxD.0J [D.cd.

trJmzH;cd.w>td.o; wz.M.vDRI [D.cd.rJmzH;cd.tHRy.CkmvX rH.pd.ph;vX>tuvkmtylR'D; vX>'D.ph<
vX>rh.tl< vX>vDR'; td.oXuvkm tusg rh>0J vX>rh.tltuvkm'D;u&Je;J < u&Jed.'J.td.&J;'D;
'J.td.&J;vX>wz.b.w>xH.tDRtgr;vDRI w>wdmusJRtvD>tusJtd.bl; 'D; puJ w>wJRz;tusdR 'D;
yJ;blw>wJRz;tusdRwz.tCd [D.cd.[l;nDEk>vDRI tCd vX w>bSDxD. ol.xD.w>wdmusJRw>ol.xD.wz.tylR
ub.zXEkmqdurd. [D.cd.vDRvmoht*h>vDRI w>td.o; 'fod;tHRtCd
w>wdmusJR[D.cd.trJmzHtrJmngwcDtHRuh.usDRwudxD.o;'D;td.ol.vDRto;vX usdRvX [D.cd.[l;0;
nDEk>tCdw>td.o;obH.bk.'D;w>b.,d.td.vDRI
w>CkxXw>wdmusJRusdRusJtHRtylR 'fod;uCkxXw>rRvD>vXt-uX;tb.t*D> w>CkxH.oh.ngqd

b.w>rRtDRvDRI w>ymzsgvDrh.tl*H>o[D.vXw>uxk;xD.tDRvXrJ;u.0J;M.vDRI vXw>rRuG>tHR tylR
xH,GRvDRttg uwX>vX pJ;*H>o[D.t*D>M.*hRM.'H; weH.txH,GRvDRtywD> tq;(20)< 'D;w>tywD>tHR-
uX;b.vX w>uqdurd. tDRt*D>vDRI w>tywD>tHRb.w>pl;ugtDRph>uD;vX
w>CkxH.oh.ngusdRusJt*Rwz.tylRvDRI
'fymzsgwh>vXtzDcd.tod;pJ;*H>o[D.tzDcd.M. usdRusJt*Rwz.tw>vXmbl.vXmphRwz. ph>uD;

b.w>xd.'G;tDRvDRI w>vXmbl.vXmphRwz.tHRb.w>'G;tDRvX eD.0hxH*H>xH;'D;*H>o[D.0JRusdR (NVE)
tw>bSDxD.tusdRtusJ'D; w>vXmbl.vXmphRtywD>wz.tod;vDRI ,leH;tyORwz.'D;
pJ;yD;vDwz.tw>vXmbl.vXmphRwz.ph>uD;b.w>'G;tDRvX w>wdmusJRt*RvX b.w>bSDxD.tDR vX
w,Hmb.wz.tw>ymzsgtd.tod;M.vDRI
ud;eH.'J;*H>o[D.vXw>xk;xD.tDR< xHEkmvDRtywD>'D; yeduh.vXteJ.tw>qXuwD>t,HmM.

b.w>Ckoh.ngyJmxHeDRz;'fxH*h>yDngtw>ohw>b.tod;M.vDRI
w>wdmusJRtHRb.w>yJmxHeDRz;tDRvX rk>usdR0JRuGm'D;usdmphw>td.o;t*D>vDRI w>yJmxHeDRz;wz.

tHRb.w>oMRxd.'G;tDRvX*H>o[D.tcdtoGJ7I0 USc/kWh tzDcd.vDRI
w>ydmxGJvXtzDvmtylR w>wdmusJRtusdRtusJ(3)bd tw>xk;xD.*H>o[D.tywD>< w>vXmbl. vXmphR 'D;

rk>usdR0JRuGm'D;usdmpht*h>tusdRwz.b.w>ymzsgxD.tDRvDRI
w>ymzsg ,leH; w>rRtqDwqD w>rRtqDcHqD w>rRtqDoXqD

XqD
*H>o[D.cJvXmvXw>xDxD. MW ၁၀၅ ၁၂၅ ၁၃၃
*H>o[D.vXuxk;xD. GWh ၃၄၁.၅ ၄၀၆.၁ ၄၃၁.၈
w>vXmbl.vXmphR mill. ၁၉၇.၁ ၂၃၉.၄ ၂၃၉.၄
USD
w>uJbsK;vXrk>usdR0JRuGmwuyR % ၉I၁ ၈I၉ ၉I၉
w>uJbsK;vXuhR'd;M>uhR % ၈.၇ ၈.၅ ၉.၅

ySJRod;od;
usdRusJ(3)cgvXw>CkxXCmtylR usdRusJvXtd.'D;w>rRoXqD tw>wdmusJRw>rRvD>tzDvm tHR uhR'd;M>uhR

usdmphw>uJbsK;ttguwX>wkR 1၀.၅rs;u,RvDRI w>Ckoh.ngtDRvDRqD tylR w>xH.M>vX
w>wdmusJRvD>usJtHR'd;M>tbsK;tzSd.txDuwX>wkR1၃.၂rs;u,RM.vDRI
w>*h>vXtzDvmtHRymzsgxD.w>wdmusJRtd.'D;tqDoXqDtw>td.o;vXtug'd.wz.M.vDRI
w>ymzsg w>*h>tug'd.wz.
tzDvmw>wdmusJR tcX>o;w>wdmusJR tzDcd.w>wdmusJR
w>rRvD> w>rRvD> w>rRvD>
cJvXmtxD m ၁၆၀ ၁၀၀ ၂၇၀
xH,GRvDRtywD>txDuwX> m3/s ၃၇I၇၆ ၃၃I၄၄ ၂၃I၅၂
pJ;*H>o[D.vXw>xDxD.CmcJvXm MW ၅၁ ၂၈ ၅၄
ud;eH.w>xk;xD.tywD> GWh ၁၆၅.၅ ၉၀.၇ ၁၇၅.၆
xHwrX.tuvkm Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC
• xHtw>EkmvDR[;xD. txDuwX> masl ၂၀၀ ၃၀၀ ၅၇၀

tywD>
xHusdR
• xHusdRtuGDRw0m m2 ၂၆ ၂၂ ၂၂
• xHusdRtxD m ၁၈၅၀ ၂၈၀၀ ၄၃၀၀
• [D.cd.rJmzH;cd.tzDcd.xHusdR m ၃၆၀ ၃၅၀ ၈၈၀

[D.cd.rJmzH;cd.tzDcd.
w>rRvD>vXtymzSd.*H>o[D.
• w.bJ.pJ;tuvkm Francis Francis Francis
•xHtr;vXvmcD masl ၄၀ ၂၀၀ ၃၀၀

w>vXmbl.vXmphR mill. ၈၃.၇ ၆၄I၉ ၉၀.၉
USD
wIuJbsK;vX'd;M>uhRvXrk>usdR0JRuGmwuyR % ၁၀.၅ ၇I၁ ၁၀I၂
w>uJbsK;vXuhR'd;M>uhRySJRod;od; % ၁၃.၂ ၆.၆ ၁၂.၇
w>wdmusJvXtd.'D;w>rRtqD3qDtHRw>ubSDxD.t*D>w>w,mCmvXu,Hm0JoXqHCkvgvDRI
w>wdmusJRutd.pH.td.usXRt*D> w>&hvdmb.xGJw>pH.pdRwJpdRwz.M. ub.w>cHuG>pDRuG> tgxD.vDRI

MqX.cd.CXR'D;w>&hvdmb.xGJwuyRw>td.o;wz.'D; w>b.'d b.xH;vX
tuJxD.o;ohwz.t*h>M.w>ub.CkxH.oh.ngtgxD.vDRI
w>wdmusJRtvD>tusJtHRtd.'D;w>obH.bk.z;'d.vX rk>usdR0JRuGmwuyR*hR< xH*h>uD>*h>wuyR ph>uD;vDRI

b.q.oemuh'fusdRusJvXxHuD>tgbh.pl;ugwh>0Jtod;xH.vdmoud;o;'D; ursX>wz.'D;
[H;M>t0Joh.tw>[h.ul.[h.z;wz.tCd rRpSRvDRw>xD'g wz.wohzJtohvDRI w>wdmusJR
w>vD>w>usJRtylR q.zduD>zdvX'k;tDtzdEk>z;'d.rh>*hRtqH;rh>*hRtd.tgr;tCd w>ok;vD>ok;usJwrh>
u0HRxJwbsDM.b.I q.zduD>zdvXttd.vDRwJmoh.wz.ph>uD; uxH.M> w>b.uDb.cJz;'d.vDRI cDzsdvX

w>usDoh.< w>xk;xD.pl;ugoh.yS>'D;MqX.*H>xH;wz.pSRvDRtCd q.zduD>zdwz. td.'D; w>uDw>cJz;'d.vDRI
w>wdmusJRw>vD>w>usJtylRph>uD; n.tuvkmwz.pSRvDRM.b. w>ymzsgxD.tDR'D; cDzsdvXw>wdmusJRtCd
t0Joh.b.td.rluDuDcJcJvDRI tCdow;'D; w>rRuG>vXcHwcgtylR MqX.cd.CXR'D;
w>&hvdmb.xGJw>Ckoh.ngtylR q.zduD>zdteD.*H>'D; 'l.xXtuvkmwz.t*h>M.w>-
uX;uG>Ckoh.ngtDRvDRvDRqDqDvDRI
w>[h.ul.
rh>b.wJtzk.M.bDux.usdtylRw>wdmusJRvXttd.'D;w>rRtqDoXqDtHRrh>usdRusJt*hRuwX>wcgM.vDRI
xHvDRqlw>vD>w>usJtw>vJRxD.vJRxDt*D> -uX;b.0J'D; w>rRtHRrh>usdRusJt*hRuwX>wcgvDR

t*h>M.b.w>[h.ul.uGJ;eD.CmvXw>CkxH.oh.ngtqduwX>w>ymzsgtylRM.vDRI
rh>uG>vXw>vD>w>usJw>td.o;wcD xH*H>o[D.w>wdmusJRtqH;tHR xk;M>ySRo;'D; rh>uG>vXxHvDRql

w>vD>w>usJRw>td.o;wcDph>uD; -uX;0Jb.0JvX ySRcJvXmt*D>'D; w>ud;rHR'J;t*D>w>ymzsgxD.tDR ph>uD;vDRI
w>wdmusJRw>&J.w>usJRvXb.w>ymzsgxD.tHR -uX; 0Jb.0JvX usdmphwuyR'D; w>ok;usJRyXqSXwuyR
ph>uD;t*h>M.b.w>xH.M>tDRvXw>CkxH.oh.ngtHRtylRM.vDRI
Executive Summary in Burmese Language
- အႏွစ္ခ်ဳပ္တင္ျပခ်က္
ပခ်က္
ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံ၊ ပဲခူးတုိင္းေဒသတြင္ ေဘာဂထ ေရအားလွ်ပ္စစ္ထုတ္လုပ္ေရးစီမံကိန္းကုိေနာ္ကြန္စားလ္
တန္႕ေအအက္(စ္)(Norconsultant AS) ႏွင့္ ေနာ္ေ၀းႏုိင္ငံ ေရအရင္းအျမစ္ႏွင့္ စြမ္းအင္ႀကီးၾကပ္ေရး (Norwegian
Water Resources and Energy Directorate-NVE) တိ႕ု အတူ ပူးေပါင္း အေကာင္
အထည္ေဖာ္ေဆာင္ရက
ြ ္ခ့ပ
ဲ ါသည္။ယခုေလ့လာေတြ႕ရွိခ်က္မ်ားကိုေနာက္ဆံုးအသံုးျပဳ ေဆာင္ရြက္မည့္ အဖြ႕ဲ အစည္းမွာ
သူးေလး ကုမၸဏီ လိမိတက္ (Thoolei Company limited) ျဖစ္ပါသည္။
ေယ်ဘုယ်အားျဖင့္ အၾကံေပးမ်ားသည္ ေဘာဂထေရးအားလွ်ပ္စစ္ စီမံကိန္းဖြ႕ံ ျဖိဳးမႈ၏ ေတြ႔ရွိခ်က္မ်ား
ကို ၎တိ႕ု အကဲျဖတ္ ဆန္းစစ္မႈမ်ားအျပင္ စီမံကိန္းရွိရာ ေဒသမ်ားသု႔သ
ိ ာြ းေရာက္ ေလ႔လာခဲ့ေသာ
ပဏာမကနဦးေလ႔လာေတြ႔ရွိခ်က္မ်ားကိုအက်ဥ္းခ်ဳံးတင္ျပထားပါသည္။ စီမံကိန္းအတြက္ အကဲျဖတ္ ဆန္းစစ္မ်ားႏွင့္
ကုန္က်ေသာေငြေၾကးမ်ား အေျခခံအသုံးျပဳျပီး ကြဲျပားျခားနားေသာ ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ေခ်ရွိသည့္ ေရြးခ်ယ္မႈမ်ားကိုသဘာဝက်က်
အေျခခံအယူအဆမ်ားျဖင့္ တင္ျပထားသည္။ ပဏာမကနဦး ေလ႔လာ ဆန္းစစ္သည့္ရရွိႏိုင္ သည့္ေျမပံုစေကးမွာ
ေျမပံုေပၚတြင္ ၁မီတာကိုေျမျပင္မွာအဆ (၅၀,၀၀၀မီတာ) ျဖင့္တင္ျပထားပါသည္။ ပတ္ဝန္းက်င္ထိခိုက္မႈႏွင့္
လူမႈဝန္းက်င္ဆိုင္ထိခိုက္နယ္ပယ္အတိုင္းအတာ
သတ္မွတ္ျခင္းေလ႔လာမႈတင
ြ ္ပဏာမကနဦးေလ႔လာေတြ႔ရွိခ်က္မ်ားဆိုင္ရာေလ႔လာျခင္း ႏွင့္ တြဲဖက္ျပီး
သီးျခားေလ႔လာခဲ့ပါသည္။
ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံအေရွ႕ပုိုင္း ပဲခူးတုိ္င္းေဒသၾကီးတြင္ ေဘာဂထ ျမစ္တည္ရွိပါသည္။ ေဘာဂထ ေရအား

လွ်ပ္စစ္စီမံကိန္းဖြ႕ံ ျဖိဳးမႈစီမံကိန္းသည္ျမစ္၏အသင့္ေတာ္ဆုံးေနရာျဖစ္ေသာမူသရ
ဲ ြာမွ၁၆ကီလိုမီတာေဝးျပီးေျမမ်က္ျပင္
အျမင္၄
့ ၀ခန္႔ရွိၿပီး၁၂ကီလိုမီတာေဝးေသာေနရာတြင္ စီမံကိန္းအထက္ပုိင္းတြင္ေဘာဂထ
ေအာက္ရာြ လည္းတည္ရွိပါသည္။
၂၀၁၆ ခုႏွစ္ ေမလ မွ ဒီဇင္ဘာလအထိ စီမံကိန္း(၂) ေနရာတြင္ ေလ႔လာခဲ့ရာ ၂၀၁၆ ေမလတြင္ တစ္
ေနရာ ၊ ၂၀၁၆ ဒီဇင္ဘာလတြင္ တစ္ေနရာ စုစုေပါင္းစီမံကိန္းႏွစ္ေနရာကို တစ္ေနရာမွ တစ္ေနရာသိ႔ု
ကူးေျပာင္းေလ႔လာခဲ့ပါသည္။ ေအာက္တင
ြ ္ေဖာ္ျပထားေသာ ကြင္းဆင္းေလ႔လာမႈမ်ားမွာ ပထမခရီးစဥ္
တြင္အမ်ဳိးမ်ဳိးျဖစ္ႏိုင္ေခ်ေနရာမ်ား၊ျမစ္ေၾကာင္း၏ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ေျခရွိျပီးေကာင္းမြန္ေသာေျမေနရာကိုေရြးခ်ယ္ခဲ့ပါသည္။ထိသ
ု ႔ေ
ို
လ႔လာရာတြင္ရာသီအလုိက(္ ၾကီမားေသာေနရာ)တည္ရွိၿပီးေရသိုေလွာင္ထားႏိုင္ျပီးအျမဲ
တမ္းစီးဆင္းရာေနရာျဖစ္သည္။ထိုပဏာမေတြ႔ရွိခ်က္မ်ားႏွင့္ေလ႔လာဆန္းစစ္မႈမ်ား ကိုအေျခခံျပီး
ၾကီးမားေသာေရသိုေလွာင္ထားႏိုင္ေသာေနရာႏွင့္အတူဖ႔ံြျဖိဳးမႈအဆင္(့ ၃)ဆင့္ျဖင့္အျမဲတမ္းလုပ္ႏိုင္မႈႏင
ွ ့္
အထက္ဘက္တင
ြ ္ ေရဝပ္ဧရိယာ သိ႔မ
ု ဟုတ္ ေရသိုေလွာင္ထားျပီး အျမဲစီးဆင္းေနေသာ ျမစ္ေနရာ
ေရြးခ်ယ္ရန္အၾကံျပဳခဲ့ပါသည္။
(က)အဆင့္တစ္ဆင့္ဖံျြ ဖိဳးတုိးတက္မႈျဖင့္ေရြးခ်ယ္ျခင္းနည္းလမ္းႏွင့္အတူႀကီးမားေသာေရအား လွ်ပ္စစ္
စီမံကိန္း တစ္ခု
(ခ) အဆင့္ႏွစ္ဆင့္ဖံျြ ဖိဳးတိုးတက္မႈျခင့္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ျခင္းနည္းလမ္းႏွင့္အတူေရတံခြန္အတြင္းတြင္စီမံကိန္း
ႏွစ္ခု
(ဂ) အဆင့္သံုးဆင့္ဖ႕ံြ ျဖိဳးတုိးတက္မႈ ျဖင့္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ျခင္းနည္းလမ္း ႏွင့္အတူေရတံခြန္အတြင္း စီမံကိန္း
သံုးခု တိ႕ု ျဖစ္ပါသည္။
ေရေလွာင္ကန္ဧရိယာအနီးအနားမွာ မိုးေလ၀သ၊ ရာသီဥတုႏွင့္ဆုိင္ေသာ သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္မ်ား

ႏွင့္ဇလေဗဒဆုိင္ရာသတင္းအခ်က္အလက္မ်ားကိုအေျခခံ၍ဇလေဗဒႏွင့္ဆုိင္ေသာသတင္းအခ်က္အလက္မ်ားကိုေလ့
လာခြျဲ ခမ္းဆန္းစစ္မႈမ်ားျပဳလုပ္ခ့ပ
ဲ ါသည္။အနီးအနားတြင္ရွိေသာေရႊက်င္ျမစ္သည္
အႏွစ္သံုးဆယ္ေက်ာ္ရွင္သန္စီးဆင္းေနေသာမွတ္တမ္းမ်ားလည္းရွိခဲ့ပါသည္။သိ႕ု ေသာ္ထိုသ႕ို ရွင္သန္
စီးဆင္းေနေသာမွတ္တမ္းကိုလည္းေလ့လာသံုးသပ္မႈတင
ြ ္ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။အျခားေသာျဖစ္ႏုိ္င္ေခ်ရွိ
သည့္ရွင္သန္စီးဆင္းေနေသာ တုိင္းတာမႈ မွတ္တမ္းမ်ား (ေဇာင္းတူႏွင့္ပခ
ဲ ူး) စီမံကိန္းမ်ားမွာ ေဘာဂထ
ေရအားလွ်ပ္စစ္စီမံကိန္းထက္အလြန္ကျဲြ ပားျခားနားေသာ၀ိေသသမ်ားႏွင့္ေျမ၀ပ္ဧရိယာမ်ားကိုေတြ႕ရွိရမည္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။
ထိ႕ု ေၾကာင့္ေရရွည္တဟုုန္ထိုးစီးဆင္းေနေသာေရအရင္းအျမစ္သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္ မ်ားကို
အေျခခံ၍ေရထြက္ရွိႏိုင္သည့္ပမာဏ မွ်တမႈအေပၚအေျခခံၿပီးႏွစ္စဥ္ေရထုတ္လုပ္ႏုိင္မႈ ပမာဏ ကို
တြက္ခ်က္ေဖာ္ျပထားပါသည္။ ေရ၀ပ္ဧရိယာမ်ားကုိေျမပံုျဖင့္ေလ့လာသံုးသပ္ခ်က္မ်ားအေပၚအေျခ
ခံ၍တြက္ခ်က္ေဖာ္ျပထားပါသည္။ ေအာက္တင
ြ ္ေဖာ္ျပထားေသာေျမ၀ပ္ဧရိယာမ်ား ႏွစ္စဥ္ေရစီးဆင္းမႈ မ်ားမွာ
အမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳးျဖစ္ႏုိင္ေျခရွိေသာ နည္းလမ္းမ်ားေဖာ္ျပအၾကံျပဳႏုိင္ပါသည္။
ရွင္းလင္းခ်က္ ယူနစ္ အထက္ပိုင္းဆည္ဧရိယာ အလည္ပုိင္းဆည္ဧရိယာ ေအာက္ပုိ္င္းဆည္ဧရိယာ(

ာ(
(ျဖစ္ႏုိင္ေျခရွိေသာနည္းလမ္းမ်ာ (အဆင့္သံုးဆင့္ျဖင့္ ၂ဆင့္ႏွင၃
့္ ဆင့္ ျဖင့္
း) ျဖစ္ႏုိင္ေသာနည္းလမ္း) ျပဳလုပ္ႏုိင္ေသာ
နည္းလမ္း)
ေရ၀ပ္ဧရိယာ Km2 ၁၄၅.၆ ၂၀၇.၀ ၂၃၃.၇
3
ႏွစ္စဥ္ေရ၀င္ m /s ၁၁.၇၆ ၁၆.၇၂ ၁၈.၈၈
ေရာက္မႈပမာဏ
ဘူမိရုပ္သင
ြ ္အေျခအေနကို ရွင္းျပရလွ်င္ ဘူမိေဗဒပညာရွင္ေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္မႈမ်ားသည္ သဘာ၀
အေလ်ာက္ျဖစ္ရပ္မ်ားကို ၾကည့္ရႈစစ္ေဆးေသာေျမျပင္ကင
ြ ္းဆင္းေလ့လာမႈႏွင့္ ၎ေဒသပထ၀ီ၀င္
အေနအထားမ်ားကိုခန္႔မွန္းေဖာ္ျပထားပါသည္(ေျမျပင္တင
ြ ္လက္ေတြ႕ကြင္းဆင္းေလ့လာမႈမရွိျခင္း။)ထုိ
ေလ့လာသံုးသပ္မႈမ်ားကို အေျခခံ၍ စီမံကိ္န္းဧရိယာတြင္ရွိေသာ ပထ၀ီရုပ္သင
ြ ္အေနအထားမ်ားမွာ မီဆုိဇစ္
ဘူမိရုပ္သင
ြ ္ေက်ာက္အမ်ိဳးအစားတြင္ပါ၀င္ၿပီးလိပ္သေ
ဲ က်ာက္၊ မီးသင့္ေက်ာက္၊ အနည္က် ေက်ာက္
ႏွင့္ေက်ာက္အမ်ိဳးအစားသံုးမ်ိဳးရွိသည့္အနက္မီးသင့္ေက်ာက္အမ်ိဳးအစားျဖစ္ေသာဂရန္ႏိုက္၊
ဂရန္ႏုိဒင
ုိ ္အုိရုိက္၊ဒုိင္အုိရုိက္ေက်ာက္မ်ားကိုအမ်ားအျပားေတြ႕ႏုိင္သည္။စီမံကိန္းဧရိယာသည္စစ္ကိုင္း
ျပတ္ေရြ႕ေၾကာႏွင့္ပက္ဘန
ြ ္းျပတ္ေရြ႕ေၾကာမ်ားအနီးတြင္တည္ရွိသည္။၎ေဒသမ်ားတြင္အဓိကငလ်င္လႈပ္ခတ္မႈမ်ားကို
ေတြ႕ရသည္။စီမံကိန္းဧရိယာသည္ငလ်င္လႈပ္ခတ္မႈကိုခံစားႏုိင္သည့္ေနရာျဖစ္သည့္အတြက္ေၾကာင့္တည္ေဆာက္မႈမ်ာ
းအတြက္ဆုိးက်ိဳးမ်ားႏွင့္ေျမျပိဳမႈမ်ားကိုထည့္သင
ြ ္းစဥ္းစားရန္လုိအပ္သည္။ ထိုအခ်က္မ်ားကို
အေျခခံၿပီးစီမံကိန္းဧရိယာေရွ႕ဘက္တင
ြ ္ခံုးေမွာက္ေနေသာ ငလ်င္ေၾကာေပၚ
တည္ရွိႏုိ္င္ၿပီးေျမၿပိဳက်ႏုိ္င္ေသာအႏၲရာယ္ျဖစ္ႏိုင္သည့္ပံုစံမ်ိဳးႏွင့္ရ႔ႈပ္ေထြးေနေသာဘူမိရုပ္သင
ြ ္
အေနအထားမ်ိဳးဟုယူဆရပါသည္။
အလံုးစံုေသာစီမံကိန္းေရြးခ်ယ္မႈမ်ား၏ေၾကာင္းက်ဳိးဆီေလ်ာ္စြာဖြ႔ဲစည္းပံုအားအေျခခံ၍သင့္ေလ်ာ္ေသာစက္ရံုအရြယ္အ
စားကိုသိရွိႏိုင္ရန္ကနဦးေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္ျခင္းအားေဆာင္ရြက္ျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။(အမ်ား
ဆံုးထုတ္လုပ္ႏိုင္သည့္လွ်ပ္စစ္စမ
ြ ္းအင္ပမာဏအားမဂၢါဝပ္ျဖင့္ေဖာ္ျပသည္)။ေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္ျခင္းတြင္အျမင့္ဆံုးေရအား
စီးဆင္းမႈရွိေသာ တပ္ဆင္မည့္စမ
ြ ္းရည္သည္ႏွစ္စဥ္ပ်မ္းမွ်ေရစီးႏႈန္းထက္အဆ(၂၀) ခန္႔ပိုမိုအားေကာင္း၍
ထိုေရစီးႏႈန္းအား သင့္ေလ်ာ္ေသာတပ္ဆင္မႈအျဖစ္ထည့္သင
ြ ္းစဥ္းစားပါသည္။
ဤအခ်ဳိးအစားကိုအျခားေသာေရြးခ်ယ္ရန္စီစဥ္ထားေသာေလ့လာမႈမ်ားတြင္လည္းအသံုးျပဳထားပါ သည္။
အထက္တင
ြ ္ေဖာ္ျပခဲ့သည့္ တပ္ဆင္မႈဆိုင္ရာစြမ္းေဆာင္ရည္မ်ားပါဝင္ေသာ ကနဦးပံုစံကိုအေျခခံ၍ အျခားေသာ
ေရြးခ်ယ္ရန္စီစဥ္ထားေသာေလ့လာမႈမ်ား၏ကုန္က်စရိတ္ကိုတြက္ခ်က္ပါသည္။ ကုန္က်
စရိတ္တက
ြ ္ခ်က္မႈမ်ားအားေနာ္ေဝႏုိင္ငံေရအရင္းအျမစ္ႏွင့္စြမ္းအင္ဦးစီးဌာန(NVE)မွေရအားလွ်ပ္စစ္တည္ေဆာက္ေရး
ႏွင့္ သက္ဆိုင္ေသာကုန္က်စရိတ္ဆုိင္ရာအေျခခံမ်ား အေပၚမူတည္၍တြက္ခ်က္ပါ
သည္။ယူနစ္ႏႈန္းထားမ်ားႏွင့္စက္ပစၥည္းကိရိယာမ်ား၏ကုန္က်စရိတ္ႏႈန္းထားမ်ားကိုလည္းေဒသတြင္းရွိ
မၾကာေသးမီမွတည္ေဆာက္ၿပီးစီး ထားေသာ စီမံကိန္းမ်ားအေပၚ အေျခခံ၍ ကုန္က်စရိတ္မ်ားကို တြက္ခ်က္ပါသည္။
ႏွစ္စဥ္စမ
ြ ္းအင္ထုတ္လုပ္မႈကိုလည္းကနဦးေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္ျခင္းႏွင့္သာမကႏွစ္စဥ္ပ်မ္းမွ်ေရဝင္ေရာက္မႈႏွင့္ၾကာျမင့္ခ်ိန္ျ
ပမ်ဥ္းေကြးလုိင္းမ်ားပါဝင္ေသာဇလေဗဒဆိုင္ရာခြဲျခမ္းစိတ္ျဖာေလ့လာတြက္ခ်က္မႈမ်ားပါဝင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ပါသည္။
စီမံကိန္းအား စီးပြားေရးႏွင့္ ေငြေၾကးဆိုင္ရာ ခြဲျခမ္းစိတ္ျဖာေလ့လာမႈမ်ား ျပဳလုပ္၍ သံုးသပ္ပါသည္။

ထိခ
ု ျဲြ ခမ္းစိတ္ျဖာေလ့လာမႈမ်ားသည္ စြမ္းအင္ဆိုင္ရာအခြန္ေငြ၇.၀ USc/kWh ျဖင့္အေျခခံ၍ တြက္ခ်က္ ထားျခင္း
ျဖစ္သည္။
ေအာက္ပါဇယားတြင္အဓိကတည္ေဆာက္မည့္ေရြးခ်ယ္ထားသည့္ဖ႕ြံ ျဖိဳးမႈ(၃)ခု၏ စြမ္းအင္ထုတ္လုပ္မႈ၊ စုစုေပါင္း

ကုန္က်စရိတ္ ႏွင့္ တြက္ခ်က္ထားေသာ စီးပြားေရးဆိုင္ရာ ႏွင့္ ေငြေၾကးဆိုင္ရာ ညႊန္ျပခ်က္ မ်ား ေဖာ္ျပထားပါသည္။
ေဖာ္ျပခ်က္ ယူနစ္ အဆင့္တစ္ဆင့္တည္ေဆာ အဆင့္ႏွစ္ဆင့္တည္ေဆာက္ေရး အဆင့္သံုးဆင့္တည္ေဆာက္

က္ေရး ေရး
စုစုေပါင္းတပ္ဆက္မႈစြမ္းရည္ MW ၁၀၅ ၁၂၅ ၁၃၃
စြမ္းအင္ထုတ္လုပ္မႈ GWh ၃၄၁.၅ ၄၀၆.၁ ၄၃၁.၈
အဓိကကုန္က်စရိတ္ mill. ၁၉၇.၁ ၂၃၉.၄ ၂၃၉.၄
USD
စီးပြားေရးဆုိင္ရာ % ၉.၁ ၈.၉ ၉.၉
ျပန္လည္ရရွိမႈႏႈန္း
တန္းတူညီမွ်ျပန္လည္ရရွိမႈႏႈန္း % ၈.၇ ၈.၅ ၉.၅
ေရြးခ်ယ္ထားေသာ တည္ေဆာက္မ(ႈ ၃)ခုအား သီးျခားစီမံကိန္းမ်ားအေနျဖင့္ တြက္ခ်က္ရာတြင္ တည္ေဆာက္မ(ႈ ၃)

ခုအနက္ အဆင့္သံုးဆင့္တည္ေဆာက္ေရး၏အနိမ့္ပိုင္းတြင္ရွိေသာ စီမံကိန္းသည္ ၁၀.၅
ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းျဖင့္အျမင့္ဆုံးေသာစီးပြားေရးဆိုင္ရာျပန္လည္ရရွိမႈႏႈန္းရွိပါသည္။ တတိယ အဆင့္ဆင့္
တည္ေဆာက္ေရး၏အနိမ့္ပိုင္းတြင္ရွိေသာ စီမံကိန္းကို သီးျခားေလ့လာရာတြင္လည္း ၁၃.၂ ရာခိုင္ ႏႈန္း ျဖင့္
အျမင့္ဆံုးေသာ တန္းတူညီမွ်ျပန္လည္ရရွိမႈႏႈန္း ရွိပါသည္။
ေအာက္ေဖာ္ျပပါဇယားတြင္အဆင္(့ ၃)ဆင့္ပါဝင္ေသာစီမံကိန္း၏အဓိကအသြင္အျပင္အေျခအေနမ်ားကို္
ေဖာ္ျပထားပါသည္။
ေဖာ္ျပခ်က္ အဓိကအခ်က္အလက္မ်ား
အနိမ့္ပိုင္း အလယ္ပိုင္း အျမင့္ပိုင္း
စြမ္းအင္စက္ရံု စြမ္းအင္စက္ရံု စြမ္းအင္စက္ရံု
စုစုေပါင္းအျမင့္ m ၁၆၀ ၁၀၀ ၂၇၀
3
အျမင့္ဆံုးေသာေရအားစီးဆင္းမႈ m /s ၃၇.၇၆ ၃၃.၄၄ ၂၃.၅၂
စုစုေပါင္းတပ္ဆင္ထားေသာစြမ္းရည္ MW ၅၁ ၂၈ ၅၄
ႏွစ္စဥ္ပ်မ္းမွ်ထုတ္လုပ္မႈ GWh ၁၆၅.၅ ၉၀.၇ ၁၇၅.၆
ေရကာတာအမ်ဳိးအစား Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC
• အျမင့္ဆံုးလည္ပတ္ေနေသာေရအမွတ္ masl ၂၀၀ ၃၀၀ ၅၇၀
ေရသြယ္ေျမာင္း
• ေရသြယ္ေျမာင္း၏ျဖတ္ပိုင္းပံု m2 ၂၆ ၂၂ ၂၂
• ေရသြယ္ေျမာင္း၏အလ်ား m ၁၈၅၀ ၂၈၀၀ ၄၃၀၀
• ေျမမ်က္ႏွာျပင္အထက္ m ၃၆၀ ၃၅၀ ၈၈၀
ေရသြယ္ဥမင္လႈိဏ္
ေျမမ်က္ႏွာျပင္အထက္ စြမ္းအင္သိုေလွာင္ရံု
• တာဘိုင္အမ်ဳိးအစား Francis Francis Francis
• အနိမ့္ပိုင္းေရအမွတ္ masl ၄၀ ၂၀၀ ၃၀၀
အဓိကကုန္က်စရိတ္ mill. ၈၃.၇ ၆၄.၉ ၉၀.၉
USD
စီးပြားေရးဆုိင္ရာ ျပန္လည္ရရွိမႈႏႈန္း % ၁၀.၅ ၇.၁ ၁၀.၂
တန္းတူညီမွ်ျပန္လည္ရရွိမႈႏႈန္း % ၁၃.၂ ၆.၆ ၁၂.၇
အဆင့္သံုးဆင့္ပါေသာ အနိမ့္ဆံုးစီမံခ်က္တည္ေဆာက္ရန္ လုိအပ္ေသာအခ်ိန္မွာသံုးဆယ့္ေျခာက္လ ခန္႕ဟု

ယူဆပါသည္။
ေရရွည္တည္တံ့ရန္ ထပ္ေလာင္းေပါင္းထည့္ေသာ ပဏာမ ကနဦးေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္ေသာလူမႈေရးဆုိင္

ရာေနာက္ခံသမုိင္းေၾကာင္းမ်ားကို ဆန္းစစ္ၿပီးထိုစီမံကိန္းတြင္ဆက္လက္ေလ့လာရန္လုိအပ္ပါသည္။
ထုိသ႕ုိ ျပဳလုပ္ရျခင္းမွာပတ္၀န္းက်င္ဆုိင္ရာေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္မႈနယ္ပယ္အတုိင္းအတာသတ္မွတ္ျခင္းႏွင့္လူမႈေရးဆုိင္ရာ
နယ္ပယ္အတု္ိင္းအတာသတ္မွတ္ျခင္းကိုေဖာ္ထုတ္ၿပီးျဖစ္ႏုိ္င္ေျခရွိေသာထိခုိက္ရွနာမႈအျပစ္အနာအဆာမ်ားႏွင့္အတူစီမံ
ကိန္းအစျပဳသည့္အခါကာလကထပ္မံျဖည့္စက
ြ ္ေသာအေၾကာင္းအရာအျဖစ္ေလ့လာခဲ့ပါသည္။
စီမံကိန္းဧရိယာအတြင္းအလြန္ရႈပ္ေထြးမႈျမင့္မားၿပီး စီးပြားေရးအခက္အခဲမ်ားႏွင့္ႏုိင္ငံေရးအရရႈပ္ေထြး
ေသာနယ္ေျမတစ္ခုျဖစ္သည္။သိ႕ု ေသာ္ႏိုင္ငံတကာအေကာင္းဆံုးလက္ေတြ႕က်င့္သံုးေနေသာေဒသခံ
ျပည္သူမ်ားႏွင့္လက္ေတြ႕ေဆြးေႏြးညွိႏိႈင္းေစျခင္းႏွင့္ ေဒသခံျပည္သူတ႕ုိ ၏အၾကံအဥာဏ္မ်ားရယူျခင္း
စေသာဖြံၿဖိဳးေရးကို ဆန္႕က်င္သည့္ အလုပ္မ်ားေလ်ာ့နည္းသထက္ေလ်ာ့နည္းေအာင္ထိေရာက္ေသာ
က်ယ္က်ယ္ျပန္႕ျပန္႕လုပ္ေဆာင္မႈမ်ားေၾကာင့္ လက္ရွိေရြ႕ေျပာင္းျခင္းဆုိင္ရာလုပ္ငန္းမ်ားစုိက္ပ်ိဳးသီးႏွံ
ထုတ္လုပ္မႈေနရာမ်ား လူမႈပတ္၀န္းက်င္ထိခိုက္မႈဆုိင္ရာ အခ်က္အလက္မ်ားမေတြ႕ရေၾကာင္းစြဲျမဲစြာ
လက္ခံယံုၾကည္မိပါသည္။ စီမံကိန္းဧရိယာအတြင္းတြင္အေသးစားႏွင့္ အႀကီးစားႏု႕ိ တုိက္သတၱ၀ါမ်ား
ေပါမ်ားၿပီးတစ္ႀကိမ္တည္းျဖင့္ ၎တိ႕ု ကိုေရြ႕ေျပာင္းျခင္းမျပဳလုပ္ႏုိ္င္ေသာ္လည္းက်န္ရစ္ေသာသတၱ၀ါ
အမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳးမွာႀကီးစြာအႏၲရယ္ဒုကၡက်ေရာက္ႏုိင္ပါသည္။ ထိ႕ု အျပင္သစ္ခုတ္ျခင္း၊ သစ္ေတာျပဳန္းတီးျခင္း၊
သဘာ၀သယံဇာတမ်ားရွာေဖြျခင္းေၾကာင့္လည္း ထုိသတၱ၀ါမ်ားသည္အႏၲရယ္မ်ားစြာက်ေရာက္ ႏုိင္ပါ
သည္။စီမံကိန္းဧရိယာအတြင္းရွိ ငါးအမ်ိဳးအစားမ်ားမွာ ေလ်ာ့က်ေနေၾကာင္းအစီရင္ခံထားၿပီးစီမံကိန္း
ေၾကာင့္ဆုိးဆုိး၀ါး၀ါး ခက္ခစ
ဲ ာြ ရပ္တည္ေနရေသာအေျခအေနကိုေတြ႕ရွိရသည္။ထိ႕ု ေၾကာင့္ေနာက္ထပ္ ေလ့လာမည့္
သဘာ၀ပတ္၀န္းက်င္ႏွင့္ လူမႈေရးဆုိင္ရာထိခုိ္က္ေလ့လာမႈတင
ြ ္သတၱ၀ါမ်ား၏အေရအ
တြက္ႏွင့္မ်ိဳးရိုးခြျဲ ခားမႈထက္ဇ၀
ီ မ်ိဳးစံုမ်ိဳးကြမ
ဲ ်ားအေၾကာင္းကို က်ယ္က်ယ္ျပန္႕ျပန္႕ေလ့လာသင့္ပါသည္။
အႀကံျပဳတင္ျပျခင္း
နိဂံုးခ်ဳပ္ရေသာ္ေဘာဂထျမစ္၏အေကာင္းဆံုးေရတံခြန္ဖြံျဖိဳးမႈႏွင့္အတူအဆင့္သံုးဆင့္ပါေသာေရအားလွ်ပ္စစ္စီမံကိန္းပံု
စံသည္ ေရတံခန
ြ ္ဖ႔ံျြ ဖိဳးေရးစီမံကိန္းအတြက္အေကာင္းဆံုး မူလကနဦးအစေလ့လာ
ဆန္းစစ္ေသာေလ့လာမႈတစ္ခုျဖစ္ပါသည္။
ေရတံခန
ြ ္ဖ႕ံြ ၿဖိဳးတိုးတက္မႈတစ္ခု၏သဘာ၀က်ေသာ သရုပ္ေဖာ္ျပပါပံုစံေသခ်ာမႈရွိၿပီးေနာက္ေရတံခြန္ ဖြ႕ံ ျဖိဳးမႈ
ေရအားလွ်ပ္စစ္စီမံကိန္းအတြင္း အေကာင္းဆံုးနည္းလမ္းဟုဆုိရေလာက္ေသာၿပီးျပည္စံုသည့္
ကနဦးေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္ခ်က္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္းအႀကံျပဳေရးသားရပါသည္။
နယ္ေျမအေနအထားရႈေထာင့္မွၾကည့္ျမင္္ရေသာ္ အေသးစားေရအားလွ်ပ္စစ္စီမံကိ္န္းသည္ ဆြေ

ဲ ဆာင္
မႈရွိၿပီးေရတံခန
ြ ္အားလံုး ဖြ႕ံ ျဖိဳးမႈရႈေထာင့္ကၾကည့္ျမင္ရလွ်င္လည္း အားလံုးအတြက္က်ိဳးေၾကာင္း ေရွ႕
ေနာက္လုိက္ေလ်ာညီေထြမႈရွိၿပီးျပည့္စံုေသာစီမံကိန္းတစ္ခုျဖစ္ေၾကာင္းတင္ျပထားပါသည္။ကနဦး အစ
ေလ့လာမႈအဆင့္တင
ြ ္ယခုတင္ျပထားေသာစီမံကိန္းအစီအစဥ္မ်ားမွာေငြေၾကးသံုးစြမ
ဲ ႈအရအေကာင္းဆံုးစီမံအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္မႈရွိေၾ
ကာင္း ေလ့လာေတြ႕ရွိရၿပီးအေကာင္းဆံုးေသာ ၀န္ထမ္းမ်ားျဖင့္ယခုစီမံကိန္းကိုေလ့
လာခဲ့ေၾကာင္းေတြ႕ျမင္ခံစားရပါသည္။
Contents
Introduction 23
Bawgata HPP Pre-feasibility Study 23
Project Location and Background 23
Main Objectives 24
Objective of the Project 24
Objectives of the Study 24
Scope of Work and Structure of the Pre-feasibility Study
Report 25
Description of the Project Area 26

Topography 26
Maps, Satellite Imagery 26
Settlements and Land-Use 27
Existing Infrastructure 28
Road Network 28
Electricity 28
Site Visits 29
Objectives of the Site Visits 29
Field Visit Program 29
First Site Visit 29
Second Site Visit 30
Key Findings from Site Visits 31
Findings Bawgata River Upper Reaches 32
Findings Bawgata River Middle Reaches 33
Findings Bawgata River Lower Reaches 35
Outline of Initial Project Alternatives 36
Hydrology 37
The Catchment 37
Climate 39
Available Data and Analyses of Data 40
Temperature 42
Rainfall 43
Evaporation 46
Flow Data 49
Water Balance 53
Data from Other Projects 54
Discussion and Conclusion on the Available Data 56

Flow Estimates 56
Methodology 56
Flows at the Alternative Dam Sites 57
Water Available for Power Generation (Flow
Duration Curves) 59
Conclusions and Recommendations 59
Flow Masurements in Bawgata River 60
Floods 61
Methodology 61
Design Flood Estimate 61
Sedimentation 63
Sediment Data 63
Preliminary Assessment of Sediment Transport 67
Geology and Geotechnical Conditions 69

Background 69
Regional Geology 69
Topography 69
Rock types and origin 69
Structural geology 71
Seismicity 73
Local Geology 74
Geology and Structures 74
Ground Water and Rock Mass Permeability 77
Rock Mass Stresses 78
Landslide Potential 78
Construction Aspects of the Alternatives 78
Construction Methods 78
Rock Support 79
Investigation and Grouting during Tunnel
Excavation 80
Other Aspects 80
Dam Location 80
Construction Materials 80
Further Investigations and Assessment. 80
Outline of Development Alternatives 82

Introduction 82
General Observations on Layout 82
Environmental Flow 83
Scope of Hydraulic Steelworks 83

Scope of Electro-mechanical Works 84
3-Step Cascade Development 85
Summary with Main Data 85
Conceptual Design 86
Hydraulic Steelworks 87
Electro-mechanical Works 88
2-Step Development 89
Grid connection 95
Electrification of Local and Nearby Communities 96
Small Scale Hydropower Project for Benefit to nearby
Communities 97
Potential Sites for Minihydro Projects 97
Challenges of Community Minihydro Plants 99
Connecting Villages to the National Grid 100
Recommendations regarding Development for
Local Electrification 100
Cost Estimate, Preliminary Optimization and

Implementation Schedule 101
General Assumptions 101
Unit Rates 101
Cost of Electrification of nearby Villages 103
Preliminary Optimization based on the 3-Step Lower
Power Plant Alternative 104
Hydrology 104
Energy Production 105
Cost Estimate 106
Evaluation of Optimum Installed Capacity 108
3-Step Lower Power Plant Cost Estimate for
Optimized Installed Capacity 110
3-Step Middle Power Plant Cost Estimate 110

3-Step Upper Power Plant Cost Estimate 112
Construction and Implementation of the 3-Step
Development 114
2-Step Lower PP Cost Estimate 115
2-Step Upper Power Plant Cost Estimate 115
Construction and Implementation of the 2-Step
Development 117
1-Step Power Plant Cost Estimate 117
Construction and Implementation Schedule for
the 1-Step Development 119
Preliminary Economic and Financial Analysis 120

General 120
Economic Analysis 120
Approach to Unit Cost Calculation 120
Cost Summary 120
Other Main Assumptions 121
Results 122
Sensitivities 122
Financial Analysis 123
Assumptions 124
Operating costs 125
Annual generation 125
Energy Tariff 125
Other assumptions 125
Financial Results 126
Financial Sensitivity Analysis 126
Conclusion 127
Initial Financing Options 128
Conclusion and Summary of Alternatives Investigated 129
Environmental and Social Issues 132

Brief Summary of Findings and Recommendations 132
Initial SWOT, Risk and Sustainability Analysis 135

General 135
SWOT analysis 135
Strengths 136
Weaknesses 136
Opportunities 136
Threats 137
Course Risk Assessment 137
Preliminary Analysis of Sustainability Aspects 139
Demonstrated Need 139
Options Assessment 140
Policies & Plans 140
Political Risks 140
Institutional Capacity 140
Technical Issues & Risks 141
Social Issues & Risks 141
Environmental Issues & Risks 141
Economic & Financial Issues & Risks 141
Terms of Reference for a Feasibility Study 142

General 142
Objectives of the Feasibility Study 142
References 144
Drawings 145
Appendix (Volume II) 146
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BHP Bawgata Hydropower Project KNU Karen National Union
CBO Community Based Organisation KEC Karen National Union Economic

Committee
CI Catch Interview
LC Local Consultant
CM Community Meeting
LRW Lowest Regulated Water Level
C/CRT Communications/Community Relations
Team m³ cubic meters
CR Consultation Record m³/s cubic meter per second
CSO Civil Society Organisation m.a.s.l. meters above sea level
DHPI Department of Hydropower mill million

Implementation, MoEE
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
MoEE Ministry of Electricity & Energy
EN Endangered
MoNREC Ministry of Natural Resources &
ESIA Environmental & Social Impact Environmental Conservation
Assessment
MW Mega Watts
ESMP Environment & Social Management
Plan NC Norconsult AS
ESMS Environmental & Social Management NVE Norwegian Water Resources and
System Energy Directorate
GoM Government of Myanmar NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
GPS Global Positioning System PCD Public Consultation and Disclosure
GWh Giga Watt Hour PCDP Public Consultation & Disclosure

Plan
HPP Hydropower Project
PIA Project Influence Area
HRW Highest Regulated Water Level
PID Project Information Documents
IDPs Internally Displaced People
PR Public Relations
IFC International Finance Organisation
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
IFC PS IFC (see above) Performance
Standards SE Stakeholder Engagement
IUCN International Union for Conservation of SIA Social Impact Assessment

Nature
ToR Terms of Reference
KII Key Informant Interview
TWL Tail Water Level
km kilometers
SMP Social Management Plan
km2 Square kilometers
UN United Nations
mm millimeters
VU Vulnerable
WB World Bank
Introduction
Bawgata HPP Pre-feasibility Study
Norconsult AS is engaged by Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) to conduct a
Pre-feasibility Study for Bawgata Hydropower Project in Bago Region, Myanmar. The End-Client for
the Pre-feasibility Study is Thoolei Company Ltd.
The project commenced in February 2016 and site visits for the study were conducted in May and
December 2016.
An Environental and Social Scoping Study has been carried out in parallel with the Pre-feasibility
Study.
Project Location and Background
The proposed Bawgata Hydropower Project is located in the eastern part of Central Myanmar,
approximately 14 km to the East of Kyaukkyi town. The Project area lies partly in Kyaukkyi Township of
Taungoo District and partly in Shwegyin Township of Bago District, Bago Region. In the Karen National
Union (KNU) it lies in the Brigade-3 Area in Nyaunglaybin District (Map reference- 94 B/ 15 46 4217).
Bawgata HPP
Project Area
Figure 1-1: Location Map (source: Google Maps)
The project area is roughly confined within an area with the following corners:
• Southwest: E96.80; N18.18

Northeast: E97.00; N18.37
The project has been studied at varying detail level throughout the years.
• In 1953, the survey report: “Comprehensive report on Economic and Engineering Survey of
Burma” by Knappen-Tippitts-Abbett-Mc Carthy (KTA) from USA mentioned that Bawgata
hydropower project was one of the projects that should be studied.
• In 1964, a UN agency made a rough assessment of a Bawgata Hydropower Project and
estimated the capacity to be about 160 MW with a 262 feet high rockfill dam. (ref: UNDP’s report
“Sittaung Valley Water Resources Development”)
• In 1978 the New Japan Engineering Consultants (NEWJEC) mention the Bawgata HPP in its
report “Burma Umbrella Project – Power Development Survey”. The report concludes that the
potential of the Bawgata HPP is 186 MW with a 82 meter high rockfill dam.
• In 2001 Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPC) of Japan was contracted for carrying out
feasibility studies at 12 potential sites in Myanmar, including Bawgata. The study was never
completed due to the conflict in the area.
Thoolei Company Ltd, a company established by The Karen National Union, signed 18th February 2016
a MoU with Ministry of Electricity and Energy for undertaking a feasibility study of Bawgata Hydropower
Project within 24 months.
The Norwegian Government has actively supported the peace process between Government of
Myanmar and Myanmar’s Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs). A part of this initiative is to support
projects on the ground to build trust and confidence among people affected by the conflict. Supporting
the development of the pre-feasibility study for Bawgata is one such project. The Norwegian Water
Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) is managing the Norwegian initiative on behalf of the
Norwegian Government.
Main Objectives
Objective of the Project
The Client is desirous to undertake a pre-feasibility study to identify potential alternatives to the
previously proposed Bawgata hydropower dam to ensure that any project that is eventually built:
1) will be compatible with the peace building process between the KNU and the GoM;
2) will provide tangible benefits to people living in the project area;
3) will not have unacceptable environmental, social or cultural impacts; and
4) will be developed with adequate public access to information and with adequate public
participation in decision making regarding the project
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the consultancy are:
• Identify the hydropower development potential of the Bawgata River at Pre-feasibility Study
level. The aim of the Study is to identify and evaluate alternatives to the previously designed
Bawgata Dam, for later being studied at Feasibility Level.
• Establish at pre-feasibility level overall design criteria including hydrology, available head, and
unit prices for cost estimates.
• To carry out field visits to familiarize with the Project area.

• Study different development scenarios including identification of hydropower development
sites, alignment of waterways and powerhouse locations to arrive at an economical,
environmentally and socially acceptable alternative, that is compatible with the on-going
peace-building process between the KNU and the GoM.
• Assess a cascade development of the available head with the aim to utilize fully the
hydropower potential in order to distribute the total investment over a longer period.
• Carry out a preliminary optimization of reservoir volumes and dam heights to assess
implications in terms of economy to the project and impacts on the environment. Considering
the topography, a reservoir can be envisaged at the upstream part of the river.
• Assess, as one alternative scenario, the potential for a series of smaller scale hydro-
development projects to generate power primarily for supply to local and nearby communities.
• To prepare an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) scoping study and initiate
a consultation process compliant with the International Finance Corporation’s Sustainability
Framework. In parallel and as part of the Pre-Feasibility Study to evaluate the alternatives with
respect to their compatibility with the peace-building process, the potential for tangible benefits
to people living in or near the project area, and their environmental and social impacts.
Scope of Work and Structure of the Pre-feasibility Study Report
A ToR forms the basis for the contract between Norconsult and NVE. As per this ToR, the Consultant
should perform a site visit at the beginning of the assignment to identify the most promising
alternatives.
The Pre-feasibility Study should focus on the main risk elements, which are hydrology, geology and
geotechnical conditions, access roads alignment, construction costs, power transmission &
distribution, and environmental and social implications.
As per the ToR, the Study should comprise the following main components:
• Data Collection
• Surveying and Mapping
• Geology and Geotechnical Information
• Hydrology, Meteorology and Sediments
• Prefeasibility Level Design and Comparison between Alternatives
• Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)
• Preliminary Economic and Financial Analyses
• Initial SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats) and Risk Analysis
• Assessment of Project Financing Schemes
• Environmental and Social Study (ESIA)
In this report, Chapter 3 to Chapter 5 summarize the investigations and basic studies used as basis for
the analyses and conclusions in the Study. Chapter 6 to Chapter 11 contain the main analyses and
recommendations and Chapter 12 contains recommendations for the next phase of project
preparation (feasibility study).
Description of the Project Area
Topography
The Bawgata Project area lies in the hilly region east of the Sittaung River floodplain. The Bawgata
river runs through a valley surrounded with green hills, where the highest mountains reach up to
around 1600 m a.s.l.. The considered project area stretches from approx. el. 40 m a.s.l. up to approx.
el.600 m a.s.l.. In the valley in the upper part of the project area there is a fertile plain, whereas the
river drops fairly steeply along an approx.16 km long stretch from el. 575 m a.s.l. to el. 40 m a.s.l..
Apart from the plain in the upper part of the project area, the valley is narrow with hardly any flat
valley bottom other than the river banks.
The Bawgata River has a considerably steeper gradient between el.45 m a.s.l. and el.570 m a.s.l. than
along its course further upstream and downstream. Over a stretch of about 20 km, the river descends
about 530 m creating favourable conditions for hydropower development. The hills above the valleys
bottom are steep, sloping 30 degrees or more.
On and around the fertile plain above el. 580 m a.s.l. there is agricultural land. Apart from this, the
project area is mainly covered by forest.
The Bawgata River meets the Sittaung River plain near Bawgata Auk Village, approx.13 km
downstream from the lowest proposed powerhouse area.
Maps, Satellite Imagery
The topographical maps used as basis for the planning are maps in scale 1:50,000 with 20m contour
interval received from Thoolei. The map sheet is named “Eastern Bago Division and Kayin State.
Sheet no. 1896-15”. Our copies of the these maps are not dated, but we assume they are older maps
from a survey made several decades ago.
We have requested information regarding updated detailed topographical maps from Thoolei and from
Myanmar authorities, without result. The Bawgata Project area is an area affected by armed conflict,
and we realise that detailed topographical maps may contain sensitive information and that distribution
may be restricted..
During the site visits, handheld GPSs were brought to the field for verification of co-ordinates and
altitude. The registrered co-ordinates (longitude, latitude) seem reasonable, but the altitude readings
were very inconsistent and out of a reasonable range of variation. Hence, the elevation readings from
the GPS are considered as not usable.
Google Earth is used as planning tool for visualisation and area analysis. As per the information in the
program, the latest satellite imagery in Google Earth of the area dates from 2011 and 2012. It is
assumed that Google Earth uses SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) data for the digital
elevation model in this area, and this model may have errors in elevations in the range of 10-20 m,
which is not very suitable for engineering purposes. However, a cross check with the elevations on
topographical maps shows generally a relatively good correlation with Google Earth in the Project
area.
To have an updated data source for land use analysis, we have acquired updated satellite imagery
data of the project area. These data have a resolution of 0.5x0.5 m and were taken 24th April 2016.
Figure 2-1: Satellite Photo from April 2016 of Bawgata River and adjacent Forest
Settlements and Land-Use
In the Bawgata Valley, there are several villages (Mu Thea, Khe Do with sub-villages and hamlets)
spread out on the plain at 600 m a.s.l.. In total there are more than 200 households in this area.
There is also a large village, Bawgata Auk, where the Bawgata River flows into the Sittaung plain,
approx.. 10 km downstream of the lowest proposed powerhouse location. This village consists of
several sub-villages and has in total about 1050 households.
Between the villages on upper plain and Bawgata Auk there are no settlements along the river, and
only a few small villages or settlements are found in the hills over the Bawgata valley.
In and around the villages there is agricultural land. Apart from this, the Bawgata Valley is mainly
covered by forest. The practice of slash-and-burn agriculture is widespread. The forest is also being
used for harvesting forest products.
Signs of logging activity can be seen near the roads in the area. There is also some mining being
started in the middle of the Bawgata Valley.
Please confer the ESIA scoping report for details regarding social and environmental issues.
Existing Infrastructure
Road Network
The Bawgata Area is connected to the national road network via the main road from Kyaukkyi to
Shwegyin. The distance from Bawgata Auk to Kyaukkiy is about 20 km, and from Kyaukkyi to the
Yangon-Naypyitaw highway about 68 km. The road is blacktopped up to Kyaukkyi. Driving time from
Kyaukkiy to Yangon is approx. three hours. There is a narrow earthen road from Kyaukky to Mu Thea
in the the upper part of the Project area. This road extends eastwards into Kayin State. The road is
hardly servicable in the rainy season.
From Bawgata Village there is an earthen road on the left bank up to a few km downstream of the
proposed lower powerhouse location. There is also a recently constructed road from the Kyaukkyi-
Shwegyin road to a mine in the middle reaches of the Bawgata Valley. This is a simple earthen road.
Electricity
There are two 230 kV transmission lines belonging to the national grid on the Sittaung plain, approx.
30 km west of the Bawgata area.
Kyaukkyi town is connected to the national electricity grid, but the grid does not extend up to the
villages in the Bawgata area.
The Shwegyin Hydropower Project south of Bawgata supplies electricity to the households in the area,
but the grid is not extended to Bawgata Auk.
Site Visits
Objectives of the Site Visits
To conduct a site visit is an important part of the Pre-feasibility Study. Normally the following would be
objectives of a site visit at a Pre-feasibility Study stage:
• Visually verify the topographical maps and geographical information in the Project area, and
verify topographical information by low cost methods like GPS readings or similar.
• Assess hydrological and sedimentological conditions like river discharge, flood levels,
sediment deposits, sediment load in the river, particularly at potential intakes – and in tail
water areas.
• Visually assess rock conditions, slope stability, foundation conditions and other critical
geological and geotechnical features at dam sites, powerhouse sites and along potential
waterways as basis for preliminary geological and geomorphological studies.
• Assess availability of construction materials and identify potential quarry sites.
• Identify suitable locations for dam/intake(s), powerhouse(s) and waterways by considering
tentative layouts from reconnaissance studies and the prevailing ground conditions.
• Consider access roads and site roads, routes for transmission lines and suitable areas for
construction camps and facilities.
• A site screening by an environmentalist to observe the environment first-hand and identify
potential issues, particularly issues of high sensitivity.
• A screening by a PCD/SIA Specialist to first-hand observe the local community context and
potential social issues.
• Conduct initial consultations with relevant stakeholders
• Meet and introduce with local authorities and relevant local organizations
In addition to the site visits by the consultant, NVE has carried out a separate site visit and established
a river gauging station and performed the required site investigations for developing the corresponding
rating curve (flow measurements, cross section surveys).
Field Visit Program
The site visits, which are commented on here, refer to the site visit program as part of the technical
feasibility study. In addition, several site visits and community meetings were arranged as part of the
Environmetal and Social Scoping Study. Please confer the Draft ESIA Scoping Report (Appendix 6)
for details.
First Site Visit
Initially a full fledged site visit was planned 13th -19th March 2016, but due to various reasons, the
Client decided to call this site visit off. A new site visit was planned 8th-12th May 2016, but various
uncertainties from the Client’s side led to a very late confirmation of the visit. For this reason, the site
visit was carried through without the full technical team being able to participate.
The site visit followed the below program.
Table 3-1: Site Visit Program, 8th-12th May 2016
Date Activity
Sunday 8th May 2016 Travel from Yangon to Kyaukkyi
Monday 9th May 2016 Meeting with CSOs and Community (Kyaukkyi mission hall)
Tuesday 10th May 2016 Field visit to the upper reaches of Bawgata Project site
Wednesday 11th May 2016 Field visit to the lower reaches of the river and potential powerhouse
locations.
Visit to Bawgata Auk area.
Visit to Shwegyin Hydropower Plant.
Thursday 12th May 2016 NVE and Norconsult return to Yangon
At the time of the first site visit, only limited sections of the project area were accessible in the upper
and lower parts, while the team did not get access to the approx.13 km long middle section of the
river.
Second Site Visit
Due to the aforementioned reasons, there was need for supplementary site visits after the rainy
season for geological site inspection and for environmental/ social screening and consultations.
A second site visit was carried through as planned, 5th-8th December 2016.
The site visit followed the below program

Table 3-2: Site Visit Program, 5th-8th December 2016
Date Activity
Monday 5th December 2016 Travel from Yangon to Kyaukkyi. Initial visit to the lower part of
Project area.
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Field visit to the middle part of the Project area
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Field visit to the upper part of the Project area
Thursday 8th December 2016 Field visit to the lower part of the river (proposed lower powerhouse
location).
Return to Yangon
During the second site visit the team got access to the middle part of the Valley, near to the proposed
middle dam site.
Mu Thea
Kyaukkyi
Upper Dam Site
Khe Doe Village
Middle Dam Site
Lower PH Area
Bawgata Village
Shwegyin Dam
To
Yangon
~5 km
Figure 3-1: Map showing places visited during Site Visits 9th-12th May and 5th-8th December 2016 (Map Source:
Google Maps)
Key Findings from Site Visits
The Site Visit Report (Appendix 3) prepared after the first site visit summarizes the findings and
observations during this visit. The second site visit confirmed the findings from the first visit, and in
addition gave supplementary observations related to geology.
Some key findings related to the thechnical study are summarized below. Please confer Chapter 5 for
observations related to geology and geotechnics and to the Draft ESIA Scoping Report (Appendix 6)
for findings related to environmental and social issues and conditions.
Findings Bawgata River Upper Reaches
The following findings are specifically related to the possible development options. Some more
observations and findings are described in a separate memo found in Appendix A.1 to the Site Visit
Report (Appendix 3).
3.3.1.1 Possible Dam Sites
The Bawgata River is flowing gently along its upper reaches until it enters the river gorge downstream
of Muthay Village. From this point the river drops about 10 m over the next 2 km to the junction of the
tributary Nwe ka le law on the right bank. This tributary, having a catchment of about 12 km², carried
some water during the site visit at the end of the dry season. The upper dam site should be located
downstream of this tributary at the gentle river channel stretching about 1.5 to 2 km further
downstream. About 2 km downstream of the junction, the river gradient increases and a dam, if moved
further downstream, would become increasingly higher and more costly.
Figure 3-2: Bawgata River near the proposed Upper Dam Site, May 2016
3.3.1.2 Alternative Reservoir Size and Locations
The only possible area for a seasonal reservoir would be at the plain above el.570 m a.s.l. surrounding
Muthay Village. A seasonal reservoir inundating the area between el. 570 m a.s.l. and el.610 m a.s.l.
(as suggested in earlier desk studies) would require substantial resettlement. Any reservoir inundating
flat area above el.570 m a.s.l. will be flooding farmland. At about el.580 m a.s.l., houses in Muthay
Village will start being directly affected.
A reservoir confined within the river gorge and with highest level below el. 570 m a.s.l. will not require
resettlement, and farmland will only be affected to a minor extent. However, due to the steepness of
the river valley sides below this plain, only small reservoirs can be established within the river channel.
It is obvious from the observations made during the fieldtrip that Bawgata River has relatively large
floods. However, with a catchment of about 148 km2 only, a seasonal reservoir on Bawgata River
would give minor reduction of the floods in the Sittaung River (32,900 km²). Locally, however, a
reservoir could have some flood reduction effect, particularly where the Bawgata River enters the
downstream plain.
3.3.1.3 Access and Construction Roads
The road from Kyaukkyi to Mu Thea Village is largely in a very bad condition and needs upgrading,
including constructing a number of bridges and culverts, to serve as permanent access to the Project
area.
It was informed that “logging roads” have been built branching off from this road and into the jungle
towards Bawgata River.
Access and construction roads should be evaluated and detailed alignments proposed at the
Feasibility Study stage.
Figure 3-3: The Road to Mu Thea Village is in a poor Condition, December 2016
Findings Bawgata River Middle Reaches
3.3.1.1 Dam and Powerhouse Location
A possible damsite for a middle project alternative is proposed just downstream the confluence of the
next large tributary on the right bank named Pa lu law ka lo C at about el.300 m a.s.l.. This area was
inspected during the second site visit in December 2016. Here the river is generally fast-flowing with
large boulders in the river course, but there are several locations with rock outcrops offering possible
locations for a low dam.
Figure 3-4: Bawgata River near possible Middle Dam Site, December 2016
3.3.1.2 Access and Construction Roads
There is a recently constructed road going to a mining area in the middle reaches of the Bawgata
Valley. This road ends in the hill approx..1 km above the possible dam site for a middle project, or the
possible location of a powerhouse for a 3-step upper project. The distance from Kyaukkyi-Shwegyin
road to the end of this mining road is approx..20 km. The new road is relatively wide and can possibly
serve as a construction road for the dam works. However, it does not have proper gravel topping or
retaining structures, and it will have to be upgraded if it is going to be a permanent all year road. From
the end of the mining road it is relatively steep and challenging terrain for constructing a road down to
the river.
Figure 3-5: The recently constructed Road to the Mine in the Middle Reaches of Bawgata Valley
Findings Bawgata River Lower Reaches
3.3.2.1 Dam and Powerhouse Location
The river's gradient changes distinctly at about el.40-45 m a.s.l.. Further downstream it flows very
gently with a gradient of about 1: 500, whereas in upstream direction the gradient is in average 1: 37.
The steepness of the river varies a lot further upstream with some waterfalls up to 15 m high.
Suitable sites for a powerhouse exist in the open area on either bank where the river flattens out. It is
also possible to construct an underground powerhouse on the right bank with access from this
location.
Figure 3-6: Bawgata River at el. approx. 45 m a.s.l. Proposed Location of Lower Powerhouse to the left.
The lower dam site is proposed at about el.170 m a.s.l. at the upstream end of a very steep section of
the river. The site could not be visited due to difficult access.
The river has deposited considerable quantities of gravel and sand in the area where its gradient
changes at about el.40-45 m a.s.l.. At the time of the site visits, it was observed that sand and gravel
were retrieved from the river at this location, most likely for construction purposes as aggregate for
concrete.
3.3.2.2 Access and Construction roads
The site visit team reached the proposed powerhouse area by car along mining and logging roads that
had already been built in the area, branching off from the Kyaukkyi-Shwegyin road. The distance from
the Kyaukkyi-Shwegyin road to the proposed powerhouse area is about 6 km.
In case a powerhouse is located on the left bank, a bridge across the Bawgata River will be needed,
or an access road is needed along the left riverbank. The distance from Bawgata Village to the
powerhouse area along the left riverbank is approximately 15 km.
The lower dam site is presumably easiest approached by an access road along the left river bank due
to the steepness of the terrain along the right bank.
Outline of Initial Project Alternatives
Following the site visit, a number of different development options were preliminarily considered. The
most promising of these were:
• One-step development with a seasonal (large) reservoir

• One-step development with a run-of river reservoir
• Two-steps development with two projects in cascade
• Three-steps development with three projects in cascade
These options are described more in detail in the Site Visit Report (Appendix 3).
The table below summarizes the main technical options considered in the Site Visit Report. The
capacity and production indicated in the Site Visit Report are very course based on preliminary
hydrological data and rough rule of thumb estimates :
Description Unit One-Step Dev. One-Step Dev. Two-Steps Three-Steps

with Seasonal with Run-of Development Development
Reservoir River Reservoir
Installed Capacity MW 100 94 117 127
Mean Annual Prod. GWh 421 358 438 466
The Site visit Report recommended not to spend resources on investigating the seasonal reservoir
alternative further, citing the following reasons:
• The seemingly marginal benefit of the seasonal reservoir;

• Bawgata HPP being a “model project” aimed at showing a new way for the hydropower
development in Myanmar;
• Bawgata HPP being aimed at building trust between KNU and the local people by having the
locals and the wider Karen community benefitting;
• The extremely challenging legacy of hydropower projects in Myanmar.
The Site Visit Report recommended to carry on with the Pre-feasibility Study including a one-step
development with the run-of-river (small) reservoir and the alternative developments comprising two or
three hydropower plants built in a cascade.
Hydrology
As part of the Pre-feasibility Study of the Bawgata HPP (“The Project”), Norconsult has carried out a
hydrology and sediment study to estimate the flow available to the Project, to assess sediment
transport in the Bawgata River, as well as the design flood flows for the hydraulic structures.
The Catchment
The Bawgata River Basin at Bawgata lower-, middle- and upper dam sites have catchment areas of
234 km2, 207 km2 and 146 km2, respectively. The Bawgata River is an eastern tributary to the
Sittaung River. The Bawgata River starts at the southern end of the Shan Plateau and runs east-west
to the Sittaung River.
The upper part of the catchment drains the mountains of the Shan Plateau with a maximum elevation
of 1653 m a.s.l.. The Bawgata watershed is the adjacent basin to the north of the much larger
Shwegyin River basin, and is located about 80 km east of the Zaungtu basin. Shwegyin and Zaungtu
are the nearest basins where series of flow records are available.
Figure 4-1 shows the Bawgata catchment and the watersheds of the gauging stations Zaungtu and
Shwegyin.
Figure 4-1: Location map of Project basin and reference basins
Figure 4-2 shows the lower, middle and upper Bawgata damsites and catchment areas.
Figure 4-2: Watersheds associated to the lower, middle and upper Bawgata dam sites.
Table 4-1 summarizes the characteristics of the Project basin alternatives and the reference basins
Shwegyin and Zaungtu.
Table 4-1: Coordinates for the outlets of the watersheds related to the gauging stations and to the dam site
alternatives of Bawgata HPP
Watershed Outlet coordinates Area (km2) Min & max elevation (m a.s.l.)
Shwegyin 96.87°E – 17.91°N 1728.8 10 – 1877 m a.s.l.
Zaungtu 96.22°E – 17.63°N 1742.6 25 – 807 m a.s.l.
Upper dam site 96.94°E – 18.32°N 145.6 560 – 1653 m a.s.l.
Middle dam site 96.90°E – 18.30°N 207.0 315 – 1653 m a.s.l.
Lower dam site 96.87°E – 18.27°N 233.7 198 – 1653 m a.s.l.
Figure 4-3 shows the hypsometric curves corresponding to the watersheds of gauging stations
Shwegyin and Zaungtu and the Bawgata lower, middle and upper dam sites.
1800
Shwegyin
1600 Zaungtu
Lower Dam site
1400
Middle dam site
1200 Upper dam site
Elevation (m a.s.l.)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Normalized accumulative area of watershed
Figure 4-3: Hypsometric curves for the Project basin alternatives and for the reference basins
Climate
The Bawgata Project is located at the southern edge of the Shan Plateau bordering the central dry
zone of the the Sittaung River delta.
The Bawgata River basin has a humid tropical climate dominated by the Southwest Asia summer
monsoon, which brings the heaviest rains between May and October. The climatological monsoon
onset date over south-western Myanmar is around 18th May.
On the plain temperatures range from 20-25 °C in January to an average of 30 °C in April.

Temperatures are falling slightly during the summer rainy season. Temperatures decrease with
altitude. We assume a temperature gradient of -0.6° C/100 m.
Across the Bawgata basin, annual precipitation varies from 2500 to 3500 mm mainly falling from May
to October.
Figure 4-4: Annual Normal Rainfall and Elevation Map of Myanmar
The Bawgata River flow fluctuates greatly through the year, mainly caused by the southwest monsoon
rains which occur from May through October. The lowest flows occur in February.
Available Data and Analyses of Data
This section deals with data, from the national authorities in Myanmar...The data have been provided
by the Department of Meteorology and Hydrology (DMH) of the Ministry of Transport and
Communication. Some data can also be downloaded from the interactive web platform Myanmar
Climate Data Web Portal (MCDWP), which belongs to DMH. The data described below originate from
long-term monitoring stations. There are no series of direct river discharge measurement records at
Bawgata River.
The following tables show the data available and the data that have been received.
Table 4-2: List of Meteorological and Hydrological Stations relevant to BHPP. Q=Flow; PP=Precipitation;
Qs=Sediment Discharge; E=Evaporation.
Station Ref. River Latitude Longitude Elevation Data Frequency Owner
Taungoo 70 Sittaung 18.91° 96.47° 49 m a.s.l. Q, PP, Qs, E Daily DMH
Zaungtu Bago NA NA NA Q, PP, Qs Daily DMH
Shwegyin 71 Schwegyin 17.91° 96.87° 12 m a.s.l. Q, PP, Qs Daily DMH
Bago 66 17.3° 96.5° 9 m a.s.l. E Daily DMH
Baw Lakhe 47/48126 19.17° list DMH
18.07° web
Phyu 68/48083 18.5° 96.45° 48 m a.s.l. DMH

MCDWP
Nyaunglaybi 48138 18.1° 96.87° 30 m a.s.l. MCDWP
Hpapun 48090 18.07° 97.43° 95 m a.s.l. MCDWP
Table 4-3: Meteorological and Hydrological Data received.
Station Data Period Available Missing data
Zaungtu-Bago Sediment Discharge 1998-2014 17 years
Zaungtu-Bago Daily Flow 1987-2015 29 years
Shwegyin Sediment Discharge 1972-2005: 34 years
Shwegyin Daily Flow 1972-2005: 34 years 01.12.1995-7.03.1996
Bago Daily Evaporation 1980-2015 36 years
Taungoo Daily Evaporation 1980-2015 36 years
Zaungtu Daily Evaporation 1989-2015 27 years
Baw Lakhe Daily Rainfall 2001-2015 15 years
Shwegyin Daily Rainfall 1981-2015 35 years Dec 1990, Dec 1994
Zaungtu-Bago Daily Rainfall 1987-2015 29 years 01.01.1987 – 30.06.2016
Figure 4-5 shows locations of the meteorological and gauging stations used in this report.
Figure 4-5: Location of the Meteorological and Gauging Stations used for the Project.
Temperature
Figure 4-6 shows average monthly temperature through the year at Taungoo meteorological station
located at 49 m a.s.l..
35
30
25
20
°C
Taungoo
15
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 4-6: Average monthly Temperature at Taungoo Meteorological Station (1964-1994).
Rainfall
4.3.2.1 Rainfall Data – Catch Efficiency of Rain Gauges
Precipitation data consist of series of daily rainfall records at Shwegyin, Zaungtu and Baw Lakhe rain
gauges.
Measured rainfall is generally lower than the real rainfall for two main reasons:
• Under catch at rain gauges due to wind effect.
• The low elevation of the rain-gauges, located in the valley and thereby measuring less rainfall
than what is falling at higher elevations. In addition the rain gauges may be located in the rain-
shadow of mountains, which should also be considered.
4.3.2.1.1 Catch Efficiency of Rain Gauges
The assessment of rainfall data should take into consideration lowered catch efficiency of the rain
gauges due to wind. Since wind in general occurs during storm and rainfall increases with storm
magnitude, the recorded rainfall will be less than the actual rainfall. Figure 4-7 shows how catch efficiency
varies with wind speed for common rain gauges.
No wind data are available from the Bawgata area. Wind records over 33 years from the Kabaye
meteorological station near Yangoon, and from the Bago meteorological station, show monthly average
wind speeds between 2.0 m/s and 2.4 m/s and about 1.3 m/s as an average over the rainy season.
Bago is located on the western side of the Pegu hills between the Irrawaddy and the Sittaung Rivers
and is less exposed to wind than Kabaye meteorological station.
Bawgata is exposed to western wind, but less than Kabaye. By considering 2 m/s as representative
wind velocity, rain gauges in the Shwegyin and Bawgata region should have an average catch efficiency
of 0.92 during the rainy season. Lowest values down to 0.85 are expected for the highest rainfall during
storm.
Therefore, measured rainfall may be underestimating the actual average rainfall by 8% and extreme
rainfall by 15% or more. This effect should be taken into account in the analyses of the rainfall data and
thus rainfall measured at rain gauges will be adjusted by a factor of 1.1...
Figure 4-7: Catch Efficiency of Rain Gauges [1].
4.3.2.1.2 Orographic Rainfall
Precipitation will vary locally in the mountainous area where orographic effects influence precipitation
and/or number of rainy days. However, we do not have information for assessing such effects.
4.3.2.2 Average Annual Rainfall
Average annual rainfall has been calculated from the available daily rainfall data from national gauging
stations. Rain gauges have annual rainfall available for all years between 1981 and 2015.
In the daily rainfall data, some days are recorded with “trace of rainfall" meaning rainfall less than could
be measured. For these dates, we assigned 0.1 mm for being able to analyse the data.
For Shwegyin, rainfall data for December 1990 and December 1994 are missing. We assigned the value
0 for all these days as there is generally no rainfall in December.
Calculated average annual rainfall is shown in Table 4-4. The figures presented in the table have not
been adjusted for under catch of the rain gauges.
Table 4-4: Calculated Average Annual Rainfall (mm).
Location 1981 - 2015 1988 - 2015 2001 - 2015
Shwegyin 3313 mm 3322 mm 3328 mm
Zaungtu NA 2923 mm 3008 mm
Bawlakhe NA NA 941 mm
The rainfall will vary over the Bawgata watershed.. There are too limited records close to the Bawgata
catchment for considering such variation. The available data do not make it possible to assess the
relationship between annual average rainfall and altitude.
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
mm/year
2500 Shwegyin
Zaungtu
2000
Baw Lakhe
1500
1000
500
0
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
Figure 4-8: Annual Rainfall records for three Rain Gauge Stations in the Project Area.
Shwegyin and Zaungtu have average annual rainfall of about 3300 mm and 3000 mm, respectively, and
the annual average rainfall is relatively consistent between the two rain gauges. Baw Lakhe has average
rainfall of 940 mm.
The highest rainfalls occur at Shwegyin and Zaungtu, which are located not far apart at the east of the
Bago/Pegu hills and west of the Shan plateau. The lowest rainfall occurs at Baw Lakhe located at the
southern edge of the Shan Plateau. This low rainfall can be explained by the Baw Lakhe station lying in
the shadow of the south-west monsoon. The area east of the first hills have lower precipitation than
those to the west because much of the moisture in the predominantly south-west air flow is extracted as
the air rises over the mountains.
Figure 4-9 shows the double accumulation plots for the rain gauge stations Shwegyin/ Zaungtu and
Shwegyin/ Baw Lakhe. The rainfall data from the three stations show good consistency despite their
different locations.
100000 50000
y = 0.8759x 45000
R² = 0.999
80000 40000
35000
Baw Lakhe
60000 30000
Zaungtu
25000
y = 0.2912x
40000 20000
R² = 0.9965
15000
20000 10000
5000
0 0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Shwegyin Shwegyin
Figure 4-9: Double Mass Accumulation Curves for the Rainfall Data at Shwegyin/ Zaungtu and Zaungtu/Baw
Lakhe Rain Gauge Stations.
4.3.2.3 Monthly Distribution of Rainfall
Figure 4-10 shows the average distribution of monthly rainfall through the year at each of the rain gauge
sites. The pattern of the rainfall at Shwegyin and Zaungtu are similar and confirms the rainfall being
dominated by the Southwest monsoon with the wettest months from May to September/October, with
maximum rainfall occurring in July/August.
The rainfall at Baw Lakhe station shows a slightly different pattern with the wettest months in
August/September and a relatively wetter period in October/November compared to Shwegyin and
Zaungtu.
900
800
700
600
mm/month
500 Shwegyin
Zaungtu
400
Baw Lahke
300
200
100
0
1
10
11
12
Figure 4-10: Average Monthly Rainfall Distribution for the three Rain Gauge Stations in the Project Area (2001-
2015)
Table 4-5 shows the the correlation coefficients between monthly rainfall values recorded at the different
rain gauge stations. There is a good correlation between the rainfall observed at Shwegyin and Zaungtu
but not with flow records at Baw Lakhe. This confirmed that Baw Lakhe has a different rainfall pattern
and should be discarded from our analysis.
Table 4-5: Correlation Coefficient between recorded Monthly Rainfall Values (2001-2015).
Rainfall Monthly correlation Shwegyin Zaungtu Baw Lakhe
Shwegyin 1 0.82 0.49
Zaungtu 0.82 1 0.53
Baw Lakhe 0.49 0.53 1
Evaporation
The evaporation measurements have been performed using the USBR evaporation pan. Daily
measurements are available at Taungoo and Bago meteorological stations.
4.3.3.1 Evapotranspiration
In accordance with FAO [2], the primary method used for calculating evapotranspiration is the
Penman-Monteith equation, based on solar radiation, temperature, wind speed, atmospheric pressure
and humidity data obtained from meteorological stations.
The method of Turc, which only requires temperature and solar radiation, can also be used for
estimating evapotranspiration. For relative humidity greater than 50%, the monthly evapotranspiration
can be calculated using the below equation:
Equation 4-1:

= 0.013 ∗
∗ + 50 ∗
+ 15
Where:
ETP: evapotranspiration in mm/month
J: number of days in the month
T: mean monthly temperature in °C
Rg: Mean solar radiation in cal/cm2/day
As an alternative, the real evapotranspiration can be calculated based on recorded evaporation from a
pan. Pan measurement provides data on the integrated effect of radiation, wind, temperature and
humidity on the evaporation from an open water surface. Although the pan responds to the same
climatic factors as does crop transpiration, several factors produce significantly different loss of water
from a water surface compared to that from a cropped surface. The difference between the pan
evaporation and the evapotranspiration is accounted via an empirically derived pan coefficient Kp as
shown in the following equation:
Equation 4-2
=
The pan coefficient depends on the pan type and setting environment, and can vary in the range 0.5
to 1.1. No information is known about the pan type and setting related to the received data. In the
following an average pan factor of 0.8 has been applied.
4.3.3.2 Average Annual Evaporation Rate
Figure 4-11 shows the average annual evaporation measured at Taungoo (49 m a.s.l.) and Bago (9 m
a.s.l.) meteorological stations. The average annual evaporation is 1628 mm at Tangoo and 1875 mm
at Bago.
2500
2000
1500
mm/year
Tangoo
1000 Bago
500
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 4-11: Annual Evaporation Records for two Meteorological Stations in the Project Area
4.3.3.3 Monthly Distribution of Daily Evaporation Rates
Figure 4-12 shows the average monthly evaporation rates expressed in mm/day measured at the
Bago and Taungoo meteorological stations. The measurements show a consistent pattern, with the
highest evaporation rates (about 6.5 mm/day) occurring in the hot dry months of March and April and
the lowest rates (about 4 mm/day) during the southwest monsoon period (June to September).
4
mm/day
Tangoo
3 Bago
0
1
10
11
12
Figure 4-12: Monthly Average of Daily Evaporation Rates for two Meteorological Stations in the Project Area..
4.3.3.4 Evapotranspiration calculated with the Turc Equation
The mean annual evapotranspiration was estimated at Taungoo using the Turc equation (Equation
4-2). For the calculation, we used the monthly mean temperature observed at Tangoo (section 4.3.1),
and a mean solar radiation of 430 cal/cm2/day (The yearly average of solar radiation for the entire
country has been found to be 18.3 MJ/m2/day). The calculation gives a mean evapotranspiration of
1487 mm/year. This value is consistent with the 1628 mm pan evaporation observed at Taungoo
meteorological station.
Flow Data
Records of daily flow are available at Zaungtu on the Bago River and at Shwegyin on the Shwegyin
River. No information has been available on the rating curves at these stations.
The catchment of the Zaungtu gauging station includes the Zaungtu hydropower dam and the
Kodugwe and Shwelaung irrigation dams. Construction of the 20-MW Zaungtu HPP started in 1994
and the plant was commissioned in March 2000. The irrigation dams have been operating since 2012.
Consequently, the observed discharge is affected by the operation of the dams. Depending on the
release of water for irrigation, discharge fluctuations of several 10 m3/sec have been recorded in the
dry season.
The catchment of Shwegyin gauging station includes the 75-MW Shwegyin HPP. Construction started
in 2002 and the plant was commissioned in December 2010. Consequently, the observed discharge is
also here affected by dam operation.
4.3.4.1 Average Annual Runoff
Average annual runoff rates have been calculated from observed flow data. These have been based
on full record series available at each station and, for comparison between stations, for the period of
record when all stations have data (1987-2005).
Figure 4-13 shows the mean annual specific runoff calculated at Zaungtu and Shwegyin gauging
stations. The average specific runoff is calculated at 46.3 l/s/km2 for Zaungtu and 176.1 l/s/km2 for
Shwegyin.
The runoff values at Shwegyin gauging station are 2 to 3 times higher than the runoff values
calculated at Zaungtu gauging station despite that the two stations are located only 75 km apart and
that the rainfalls are similar in the two watersheds (4.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.3).
300
250
200
l/s/km2
150 Shwegyin
Zaungtu
100
50
0
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
2007
Figure 4-13: Yearly Runoff Distribution for Shwegyin and Zaungtu Gauging Stations. 2012
4.3.4.2 Monthly Distribution of Runoff Rates
Figure 4-14 shows the average monthly runoff rates observed at Shwegyin and Zaungtu gauging
stations. The values show a similar distribution over the year but the runoff rates at Shwegyin are two
to three times higher than at Zaungtu.
700
600
500
400
l/s/km2
Shwegyin
300 Zaungtu
200
100
0
1
10
11
12
Figure 4-14: Monthly Average of Runoff Rates for Shwegyin and Zaungtu Gauging Stations (1987 – 2005).
Figure 4-15 shows the monthly flow at Shwegyin gauge station found in a Myanmar country report [3]
(left) and calculated in this report (right). As can be concluded, the two presentations are quite similar..
1200
1000
800
m3/s
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Figure 4-15: Monthly Average Flow for the Shwegyin Gauging Station from Country Report (DMH) and as
calculated in this Report.
4.3.4.3 Duration Curve
The below figure shows the monthly flow duration curve for flow records at Shwegyin and Zaungtu
gauging stations for the period 1987-2005.
1800 6
1600
5
1400
1200 4
Qmm (m3/s)
1000
Qmm/Qma
3
800 Shwegyin Shwegyin
600 Zaungtu 2 Zaungtu
400
1
200
0 0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of time % of time
Figure 4-16: Duration Curves for mean Monthly Flow Qmm recorded at Shwegyin and Zaungtu Gauging Stations.
The dimensionless flow duration curves for the two gauging stations are quite similar and thus the flow
distribution is similar around the mean flow. The Zaungtu curve shows longer duration of smaller
flows, which is certainly an effect of the regulation dams in the Zaungtu basin.
4.3.4.4 Annual Maximum Daily Flood
Figure 4-17 and Table 4-6 show the annual maximum daily flood flow at Shwegyin and Zaungtu
gauging stations taken from the observed daily flow time series. The annual maximum daily flood flow
corresponds to the daily average flow for the day of the year with the maximum flow record and is not
always associated with the highest flood volume.
4000
3500
3000
2500
Q (m3/s)
2000 Shwegyin
Zaungtu
1500
1000
500
0
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Figure 4-17: Annual Maximum Daily Flood Flow recorded at Shwegyin and Zaungtu Gauging Stations.
Table 4-6: Annual Maximum Daily Flood Flow at Shwegyin and Zaungtu Gauging Stations (l/s/km2).
Year Shwegyin Zaungtu Year Shwegyin Zaungtu
1972 1261 / 1989 682 358
1973 975 / 1990 1322 636
1974 1275 / 1991 1311 406
1975 854 / 1992 1499 613
1976 791 / 1993 1418 432
1977 745 / 1994 1363 710
1978 934 / 1995 687 453
1979 1107 / 1996 1479 535
1980 993 / 1997 2097 593
1981 902 / 1998 462 293
1982 1022 / 1999 1910 414
1983 523 / 2000 1115 546
1984 958 / 2001 1253 352
1985 1058 / 2002 1102 358
1986 743 / 2003 824 573
Water Balance
4.3.5.1 Consistency of Data
The below figures show the double mass accumulation curves for the annual rainfall and runoff at
Shwegyin and Zaungtu stations.
Shwegyin Zaungtu
120000 30000
y = 1.7222x
R² = 0.9989 y = 0.4807x
100000 25000
R² = 0.9891
80000 20000
Runoff
Runoff
60000 15000
40000 10000
20000 5000
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Precipitation Precipitation
Figure 4-18: Double Mass Analysis at Shwegyin and Zaungtu Gauging Stations
At Zaungtu annual runoff values are about 50-60% of the precipitation values, which is reasonable.
At Shwegyin, annual runoff values are about two times the precipitation values. This is not consistent
and indicates: either that the precipitation is largely underestimated and/or that the flow records are
derived from an erroneous rating curve at the Shwegyin gauging station.
4.3.5.2 Water balance
A water balance check has been performed for the Shwegyin and Zaungtu watersheds for the period
1988-2005 in order to verify the consistency of the different sources of data and to get an estimate of
the mean annual flow at the outlet of each watershed.
For the Shwegyin watershed, we used the mean annual rainfall measured at Shwegyin and the mean
annual evaporation measured at Taungoo.
For the Zaungtu watershed, we used the mean annual rainfall measured at Zaungtu and the mean
annual evaporation measured at Bago.
Two calculations have been performed:
• an initial calculation without correction factor on the rainfall nor on the evaporation (very
conservative calculation).
• a second calculation (more realistic but still conservative) where:
o the rainfall records are increased by 10% to account for the under catch of the rain
gauges. Orographic effects are not included and thus the precipitation may still be
underestimated.
o the evaporation figures are decreased by 30% to account for (i) the high average
elevation of the project catchments compared to the elevation where the evaporation
measurements were made (The elevation of the Shwegyin catchment varies from 10
to 1877 m a.s.l., while evaporation was measured at Taungoo (49 ma.s.l.). The
elevation of the Zaungtu catchment varies from 25 to 807 m a.s.l., while evaporation
was measured at Bago (9 m a.s.l.).) and (ii) the real evapotranspiration from
vegetated areas compared to pan evapotranspiration.
Results of the two calculations are shown in Table 4-7. The table shows the effective rainfall runoff,
calculated as the difference between the precipitation and the evapotranspiration, and the
corresponding mean annual flow. The last column in the table shows for comparison the mean annual
flow calculated from the flow records at the gauging stations.
There is a 30% difference, between the results given by the two calculations.
Table 4-7: Water Balance Check for the Shwegyin and Zaungtu Watersheds for the Period 1988-2005.
Watershed Average annual Average annual Effective Specific Qma Qma

rainfall (mm) evapotranspiration rainfall runoff (m3/s) observed at
(mm) (mm) (l/s/km2) gauging
station
(m3/s)
Shwegyin 3322 1593 1729 54.8 95 308.1
Zaungtu 2923 2074 849 26.9 47 81.1
Shwegyin 1.1*3322=3654 0.7*1593=1115 2539 80.5 139 308.1
Zaungtu 1.1*2923=3215 0.7*2074=1452 1774 55.9 97 81.1
The water balance check for Zaungtu watershed seems fairly reasonable as it gives a mean annual
flow of 97 m3/s while the mean annual flow calculated at the Zaungtu gauging station is 81.1 m3/s.
The water balance check for Shwegyin watershed gives a mean annual flow of 139 m3/s, which is far
from the calculated annual mean flow of 308.1 m3/s observed at the Shwegyin gauging station. The
very large difference indicates strongly that the flow records at Shwegyin gauging station have
systematic errors, most probably due to an erraneous rating curve,overestimating the actual river flow.
The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the flow records from Shwegyin gauging station
are highly unreliable. Consequently, the Shwegyin recorded flow data cannot be used directly as basis
for our flow estimates for the Bawgata Project.
Data from Other Projects
4.3.6.1 Shwegyin Hydropower Plant
Shwegyin HPP on the Shwegyin River was commissioned in December 2010. The project is located
upstream of the Shwegyin gauging station and utilises the water from the northern branch of Shwegyin
river with a watershed of 880 km2.
According to available public information Shwegyin HPP is designed for a production level of 262
GWh/year, which given the project data listed in Table 4-8 and assuming an overall plant efficiency of
0.85, corresponds to a specific runoff of 130.7 l/s/km2. This value lies between the values of the
specific runoff obtained from the water balance check on the Shwegyin basin and the runoff calculated
from the Shwegyin gauged value (80.5 – 176.1 l/s/km2).
We suspect that this value is too high given that precipitation over the project is Pp=3654 mm, which
corresponds to a specific runoff of about 80 l/s/km2 (Table 4-7).
Table 4-8: Shwegyin HPP Project Data
Watershed Area 880 km2
Pp 3654 mm
Installed capacity 4×18.75=75 MW
Design flow 4×54=216 m3/s
Lowest Net Head 41.4 m
Long term Production 262 GWh/year
HRWL - LRWL (m a.s.l.) 60 – 42 m a.s.l.
Water storage 2000 Mm3
4.3.6.2 Zaungtu HPP
Zaungtu HPP on the Bago River was commissioned in 2000. The project is located upstream of the
Zaungtu gauging station and utilises the water from a watershed of about 1250 km2 (estimated from
available information).
According to available public information on this project, the Zaungtu HPP is designed for a production
level of 76 GWh/year. Given the Project data listed in Table 4-9 and assuming an overall plant efficiency
of 0.85, this production level corresponds to an average production flow of 38 m3/s and a specific runoff
of 30.4 l/s/km2 (floodspill and evaporation not included). This value is smaller but consistent with the
values of the specific runoff obtained from the Zaungtu gauged value and the water balance check on
the Zaungtu basin (46.5 – 55.9 l/s/km2). (Table 4-7)
Table 4-9: Zaungtu HPP Project Data
Watershed Area 1250 km2
Installed capacity 2×10=20 MW
Design flow 2*43=86 m3/s
Net Head 27.4 m
Long term Production 76 GWh/year
Discussion and Conclusion on the Available Data
Flow data at Zaungtu are discarded because the flow series is short (1987 – 1994 for flow unaffected
by upstream flow regulation) and because the flow data show a mean runoff (45 l/s/km2) much lower
than what is observed in Shwegyin basin, which is the adjacent cathment south of the Bawgata
Project basin. The Zaungtu basin shows a hydrologic behaviour similar to the Shwegyin basin (flow
distribution, duration curve), but has different physical characteristics (lower elevation, less runoff and
does not drain the same range of mountains).
The preliminary hydrological assessment is made using the precipitation and flow data records at
Shwegyin gauging station. The neighbouring Shwegyin basin exposes physical characteristics similar
to the Bawgata Project catchment and drains the same mountain range. It is therefore assumed that
the Project catchment receives the same amount of precipitation and that the hydrological regime is
similar to the Shwegyin basin. The cathments of the proposed Bawgata Projects are significantly
smaller than the Shwegyin basin, and the Bawgata catcments have higher gradient and likely less
forest cover than Shwegyin. These factors would indicate a quicker runoff than the Shwegyin basin.
On the other hand, the intakes for the Bawgata projects have higher altitude than Shwegyin, and
would therefore normally have a higher total precipitation. Hence, out of the gauging data available
Shwegyin gauging station is considered to be the data that best represents Bawgata’s discharge.
However, our analysis in the previous sections shows that flow data recorded at Shwegyin present a
too high runoff rate to be consistent with the other data available in the area (Rainfall records at
Shwegyin, flow records at Zaungtu and information from Shwegyin HPP). Therefore, Shwegyin flow
records cannot be used directly but need to be downscaled. On the other hand, a publication from
DMH shows the same flow records and statistics for the Shwegyin gauge before downscaled as we
received for this report.
The flow records at Shwegyin gauging station are downscaled considering the long term mean annual
inflow calculated from the water balance check 139 m3/s (1988-2005) instead of the long term mean
annual flow at Shwegyin gauging station calculated to 273.8 m3/s (1972-2005).
To simulate true inflow in the Shwegyin River, the flow series at Shwegyin gauge staion have been
downscaled by a factor 139/273.8=0.51 as basis for estimating the inflow available for the Bawgata
Project. By doing so, the long term mean annual flow at Shwegyin gauging station becomes 139.6
m3/s (1972-2005).
We recommend investigating further the flow data of the Shwegyin River (rating curve, turbined flow
volume at Shwegyin HPP) to confirm our further estimation of the water available for the Bawgata
Project.
Flow Estimates
Methodology
The method selected for this preliminary hydrological study is scaling by area the flow records from
Shwegyin gauging station. As discussed in section 4.3.7, flow records available at Shwegyin will also
be corrected and downscaled by a factor 0.51.
This approach is based on the assumption that the Shwegyin basin and the Project basin have a
similar hydrological behaviour and respond in the same way to a given precipitation. The precipitation
over the Shwegyin basin and the Project basin is assumed to be equal (Pp=3654 mm.)
The Shwegyin daily flow series are available for the period 1972-2005. The records have some gaps
in the period December 1995 to March 1996. These gaps were filled with the monthly average values
for those dates.
The flow at the Project intake is estimated using the following formula:
Equation 4-3: = ∙ / ∙
Were: Qi = daily flow at project intake
Qp = daily flow at the reference basin Shwegyin.
Ai = catchment area at the lower, middle and upper intake sites (Table 4-1).
Ap = catchment area of the Shwegyin basin (Table 4-1).
f = 0.51, the correction factor for the flow at Shwegyin basin.
Flows at the Alternative Dam Sites
By applying the method given in the previous section, a daily flow series can be obtained for each
alternative site. From these flow series the following characteristics are calculated for the three dam
site alternatives:
• the matrix of monthly flows,

• the average monthly flow (Table 4-10 and Figure 4–19)),
• the mean annual flow (Table 4-10 and Figure 4-20),
• and the duration curve for the monthly flow (Figure 4-21).
Table 4-10: Mean Monthly Flow calculated at the Alternative Dam Sites (1972 – 2005).
Qmm Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Upper 3.0 2.3 1.9 1.6 2.6 11.3 27.5 41.7 25.9 12.2 6.7 4.4
Middle 4.2 3.3 2.7 2.2 3.7 16.1 39.1 59.3 36.8 17.4 9.5 6.3
Lower 4.8 3.7 3.0 2.5 4.2 18.2 44.2 66.9 41.6 19.6 10.7 7.1
The following figure shows the monthly distribution of the flow available at the lower, middle, upper
dam sites.
70.0
60.0
50.0
Qmm (m3/s)
40.0
Upper
Middle
30.0
Lower
20.0
10.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 4-19: Mean Monthly Flow at the alternative Dam Sites
The following figure shows the mean annual flow available at the lower, middle and upper dam sites.
30
25
20
Qmm (m3/s)
Upper
15
Middle
Lower
10
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Figure 4-20: Yearly Average Flow at the alternative Dam Sites
Water Available for Power Generation (Flow Duration Curves)
The following figure shows the duration curves associated to the monthly flows available at the lower,
middle, and upper dam sites.
120
100
80
Qmm (m3/s)
60 Upper
Middle
40 Lower
20
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of time
Figure 4-21: Duration Curves for the lower, middle and upper Dam Site Alternatives
Conclusions and Recommendations
The main conclusion of our preliminary assessment of the Hydrology of the Bawgata River is that
there is high uncertainty as to the flow available for the Project since fully reliable flow records do not
exist in the vicinity of the Project. The available flow records at Shwegyin River, the neighbouring
catchment to the South, are not reasonably consistent. They present too high inflow compared to a
realistic inflow estimated from water balance checks on the Shwegyin catchment and compared to the
inflow estimated from Shwegyin HPP operational data. Shwegyin flow records also show a mean
annual runoff three times the mean annual runoff estimated at the Zaungtu gauging station on the
Bago River. The two catchments are 75 km apart and do not drain the same mountains, which may
partly explain the large difference in the runoff value.
A preliminary assessment of the flows available for the Project has been done, based on the water
balance checks, by correcting the flow records available at the Shwegyin gauging station (1972-2005).
The flows at Shwegyin gauging station were downscaled by a factor 0.51 and scaled by area to the
Project catchment for each dam site alternative.
With this method, the mean annual flows available at the upper, middle and lower dam sites have
been estimated to 11.8 m3/s, 16.7 m3/s and 18.9 m3/s, respectively. The figures are uncertain and
most probably underrate the actual flows.
In order to reduce the uncertainty of the flow estimates at the Project dam sites and to confirm our
further estimation of the water available for the Bawgata Project, we recommend the following actions:
• Further investigation of the flow data from Shwegyin gauging station (rating curve) and of flow
records and all available data from Shwegyin HPP (reservoir water level, energy production,
reservoir volume curve, evaporation, etc.) to check the actual flows available in the Shwegyin
River and rescale the reference flow accordingly.
• Install a gauging station on the Bawgata River to obtain a series of daily flow to improve the
estimation of the available flow for the Bawgata Project. This gauging station is already
established in December 2016.
Flow Masurements in Bawgata River
During the course of the PFS, Thoolei with the support of NVE has established a gauging station in
Bawgata River. The gauging station is located downstream the proposed intake for the Lower Project,
and recordnings have been taken since December 2016.
The gauging station has only been operating for less than 6 months and only a few discharge
measuremrnt have been done to make the rating curve. In addition, there seem to be a few issues
with the recorded data. Hence it is too early to rely on the flow dervived from the gauging station. Still,
the discharge measurements conducted will give an indication whether the range of the flow estimates
above is reasonable or not.
Table 4-11: Flow measurements in Bawgata River conducted by NVE
Date Method Measured discharge (m³/s)
06-12-2016 Salt dilution 8.16
07-12-2016 Surface velocity 8.24
08-03-2017 Current meter 2.22
26-04-2017 Current Meter 1.12
As we can see, the measured flows are fairly consistent with the estimated mean monthly flows in
Table 4-10. The flow measurements in the end of the dry season (March and April) are slightly lower
than the estimates mean flows, but it is too early say if it is a trend or an annual variation.This should
be followed up and investigated further in the Feasibility Study.
A few more details regarding the gauging station is available in a memo prepared by NVE (Appendix
5)
Floods
Methodology
In order to assist in the consideration of dam spillway and plant design, analyses have been
undertaken to assess peak flood flows for the proposed Bawgata dam site alternatives. Flood
hydrographs were not prepared as the Project has small reservoir volumes and it is therefore not
relevant to perform flood routing simulation.
Design flood flows up to and including the 0.1% annual probability of exceedance (1 in 1000 year
return period) have been estimated from flow data measured at Shwegyin and Zaungtu gauging
stations using flood frequency analysis.
Design Flood Estimate
4.6.2.1.1 Flood Frequency Analysis
Flood frequency analysis has been applied to the annual maximum daily flows observed at Shwegyin
gauging station for the period 1972 to 2005 (34 years) (see section 4.3.4.4).
Several probability distribution functions (normal, log-normal, Pearson, Log Pearson, Gumbel) have
been tested. All distributions pass the Chi2 test. However, Figure 4-22 shows how the distributions
yield to significantly different estimates for return period larger than 30 years.
As all distribution functions give acceptable fits to the data and pass the Chi2 test, the average of the
probable flood flow obtained for all distribution tests has been regarded to be the most likely result of
the flood frequency analyses. These values are considered to be in the middle range of likely flood
flows.
Shwegyin
6000
5000
4000 OBS
Q (m3/s)
Normal
3000 Log normal
Pearson
2000 LogPearson
Gumbel
1000
0
1 10 100 1000
Return period T (Years)
Figure 4-22: Frequency Analysis on Maximum Daily Flow at Shwegyin (1972-2005).
Table 4-12: Frequency Analysis on Maximum Annual Daily Flood Flow at Shwegyin.
T [years] QT QT QT QT QT QT
Normal Log Normal Pearson Log Pearson Gumbel Average
2 1863 1771 1775 1790 1769 1794
30 2980 3225 3167 3141 3403 3183
100 3280 3789 3662 3610 4061 3680
500 3616 4537 4285 4194 4934 4313
1000 3745 4863 4544 4436 5309 4580
The data available for use in the flood frequency analysis are daily mean flow data. Halcrow (1995)
summarises a method for converting daily mean flow data to estimates of instantaneous peak flow
during flood events as a function of the catchment area. For a watershed area of 2000 km2, the ratio is
1.16. Value of the ratio for smaller watershed was not reported but it will be even higher for watershed
150-250 km2. All flows quoted below have been adjusted from daily mean flow to instantaneous peak
flow using this factor.
4.6.2.2 Estimation of Flood Flow at the Project Dam Site
The flood flows obtained at Shwegyin are scaled, by area, to estimate the flood flow at the different
dam sites using Equation 4-3. The peak flow below include a factor 0.51 to take into account the
overestimation of the Shwegyin flow records (see section 4.3.7. Estimates of peak flood flows at the
three alternative dam sites are summarized in the table below.
Table 4-13: Peak Flood Flows at the Alternative Dam Sites.
T [years] Upper Middle Lower
2 104 147 166
30 184 262 295
100 213 302 341
500 249 354 400
1000 265 376 425
Flood flows were estimated at the alternative dam sites for return periods from 2 years to 1000 years.
The period of records is short, (1972-2005). Flood flow estimates for return periods larger than 30
years therefore represent a high uncertainty.
Sedimentation
Sediment Data
As part of the pre-feasibility study we have reviewed all received sediment discharge data to decide if
sediment transport and sedimentation need to be considered in the design of the Project. The
available data are limited, as there are:
• no measurements of the bed load,

• no grain size distribution analyses of the suspended sediments, the bed load or the bed
material, or
• petrographic or mineralogical information for determining the composition of the sediments (of
special interest are contents of hard minerals like quartz, which would be very abrasive to the
turbines).
4.7.1.1 Sediment Discharge Data
Daily mean sediment discharge data (kg/s) at Zaungtu and Shwegyin gauging station were received
from DMH. The origin of the data is not mentioned but when looking at the sediment discharge records
(Figure 4-23), it appears that the sediment discharge data have been obtained by calculation from the
flow discharge using a sediment rating curve (Equation 4-4). This seems especially evident for the
data received for Shwegyin, which align perfectly in a log-log plot, demonstrating an exponential
relation between the flow discharge and the sediment discharge. The data from Zaungtu River show
more scattered data that may be a mix of direct measurements in the Bago River and calculated
sediment discharge.
No information was available on the basis for the sediment rating curves used at these stations
(sediment concentration measurements and corresponding flows, method of measurement, etc).
There is no information on whether the sediment discharge figures relate to total load (including
bedload) or only include suspended load. Normally, measurements will only include suspended load.
The below figure shows the daily mean sediment discharge (kg/s) at Shwegyin and Zaungtu gauging
stations, as received, plotted as a function of the flow discharge.
It should be noted that the sediment discharge, in kg/s, is calculated using the flow discharge. Thus
the flow is plotted both on the X and Y axis (auto-correlation problem).
Figure 4-23: Daily Mean Sediment Discharge (kg/s) at Shwegyin and Zuangtu Gauging Stations.
It is obvious that the mean sediment discharge varies with the flow discharge as an exponential
function and that it was calculated from the flow discharge using a rating curve as follows:
Equation 4-4: = !
From the sediment discharge data and the flow records, we back-calculated the sediment
concentration in the Bago and Shwegyin Rivers.
For Shwegyin, the sediment concentration, calculated as the ratio between the sediment discharge
(kg/s) and the flow discharge (m3/s), ranges from 10 to 1000 mg/l, which corresponds to very low to
moderate sediment concentration. For the period 1972-2005, we calculated a mean annual sediment
yield of 515 ton/year/km2 (368 m3/year/km2).
For Zaungtu the sediment concentration ranges from 500 to 5000 mg/l, which is associated to
moderate to very high sediment transport. For the period 1998-2014, we calculated a mean annual
sediment yield of 3841 ton/year/km2 at Zaungtu (2743 m3/year/km2).
The sediment concentration and sediment yield to the Shwegyin and Bago rivers are very different
while the watersheds are located relatively close to each other.
4.7.1.2 Sediment yield data
Assumed sediment yields of other HPP projects in Myanmar, that are located on the Shan Plateau
east of Nay Pyi Daw close to the border with Thailand and Laos, vary in the range 160 - 470
m3/year/km2 (230-330 tons year/km2).
Those values lie on the low side of the typical values indicated at a sediment yield world map (Figure
4-24) and from the erosion rate country map (Figure 4-25).
Figure 4-24: World Map of the Annual Suspended Sediment Yield [1].
Figure 4-25: Map of Annual Erosion Rate in Myanmar. Bawgata Project Area is circled.
For the area of the project:
• World map (Figure 4-24) indicates a suspended sediment yield for the Project area between
250 to 750 ton/year/km2 (178 to 536 m3/year/km2).
• Country map (Figure 4-25) indicates an annual erosion rate for the Project basin and
Shwegyin basin, located in Zone 1, between 470 and 705 m3/year/km2.
• Country map (Figure 4-25) indicates an annual erosion rate for the Zaungtu basin, located in
Zone 6, of about 1896 m3/year/km2.
The values given by the country map confirm the large difference in sediment yield observed between
the Zaungtu and Shwegyin catchment. This may be explained by difference in the geology of the soil
and the physical characteristics of the watersheds (landscape, vegetation, slopes etc.).
4.7.1.3 Sediment Characteristics Data
No information was provided regarding the sediment grain size distribution, sediment type or
mineralogy.
However, based on the report and photos from the site visit along the Bawgata River we estimate that:
• The area surrounding the river from Muthey to the confluence with New Ka Le Law River
consists of dense jungle, some areas upstream of the confluence are being cultivated or are
barren land. Picture #1 shows an open area on a steep river bank that may be subject to soil
erosion.
• The upper Bawgata River near the confluence with New Ka Le Law River lies in a narrow and
steep valley with exposed rock and large boulders in the river bed (Picture #2).
• The sediment transport includes a high sand content as it was observed large deposits of
sand along the flat stretch of the Bawgata River (Picture #3).
• The site visit report mentions a high content of quartz grains (some relatively coarse) in the
river bank deposits.Quartz represents high hardness and has a strong abrasion potential.
Landscape in Bawgata
River Valley upstream of
the confluence with New
Ka Le Law River.
10th May 2016.
Bawgata River near the

confluence with New Ka
Le Law River. Looking
upstream.
10th May 2016.
Bawgata River and hillside

behind proposed lower
Power House location
(left). Looking
downstream.
11th May 2016.
Figure 4-26: Pictures of the Project Area showing Characteristics of the Watershed and of the Sediment Deposits
at the Bawgata River Banks.
4.7.1.4 Discussion
We received two sets of sediment data: one from the Shwegyin River at Shwegyin and the other from
the Bago River at Zaungtu. Although the two watersheds are not located far apart, they exhibit very
different sediment concentration and sediment yield.
The sediment yield associated to the Shwegyin River basin is between 368 and 705 m3/year/km2
which is a quarter of the sediment yield associated to the Bago River at Zaungtu. This difference may
be explained by different local geology and physical characteristics of the basins.
We recommend further investigation of the sediment data. The actual raw sediment concentration
measurements performed in the rivers should be further reviewed, as well as the sediment rating
curve, which indicates a relation between the the flow discharge and the sediment discharge..
Information is lacking on the methodology that has been used for obtaining this relation. Further
information and data are required and need to be reviewed before the presented sediment data can
be considered reliable for assessing the sediment transport issue for the Bawgata Project.
In addition the sediment discharge data received (kg/s) are calculated using the flow data measured at
Shwegyin station that is overestimated (section 4.3.4) Therefore, the sediment data from Shwegyin
River are not considered further in this report.
The preliminary sediment assessment for the Project will be done by using a mean suspended
sediment yield of 540 m3/year/km2 of the catchments.
Preliminary Assessment of Sediment Transport
4.7.2.1 Methodology
Three methods are available for estimation of sediment transport:
1. Estimation from suspended load measurement data

2. Estimation based on comparing sediment yield in the Project area with data from adjacent
HPP projects.
3. Estimation using empirical formula based on flow discharge and sediment characteristics
No reliable sediment measurement records or discharge flows are available near the Bawgata River.
We estimate the sediment yield based on a mean suspended sediment yield of 540 m3/year/km2
estimated from the erosion country map (section 4.7.1.2).
4.7.2.2 Estimate of the Total Sediment Load to the Dam Site
Bedload transport should be added to the suspended load. When no bedload measurements are
available, it is common to estimate the bedload transport as a percentage of the suspended load. The
bedload transport may represent 10 to 60% of the suspended load [4]. Among other factors, the
percentage depends on the type of bed material, the gradient of the river bed, the suspended
sediment concentration, and the geology of the project basin.
We estimate the percentage of bedload following the recommendation given in [2]. Given that sand is
important in the Shwegyin River and that the recorded suspended load is generally <1000 mg/l, but
higher for high flows, we consider that bedload represents 20% added to the suspended load. The
percentage may be higher as it was noted large deposits of sediments downstream of the planned
Project location.
Finally the total sediment load expected in the Project area is estimated at 650 m3/year/km2. Given the
catchment area of the upper dam site, 145.6 km2, the sediment inflow that will reach the upper dam
alternative would be about 94,640 m3/year. All the sediment deposited in the reservoir, should not
significantly affect the live storage volume within a 50-year period, and thus should not affect the
operation of the Project. The active reservoir volume at the upper dam site is estimated at 6 ×106 m3
and accordingly the reservoir can store more than 60 years of mean annual sediment inflow to the
reservoir.
To reduce the uncertainty and confirm the sediment inflow to the upper dam site, we recommend
reviewing the sediment concentration measurements (methods and values) as well as the sediment
rating curve used by the DMH for calculating the solid discharge at the Shwegyin River.
Also, we recommend to perform some sampling of the sediments in the Bawgata River upstream of
the dam sites (transported during flood and from the river bed) for determining the sediment
characteristics (size distribution and mineralogy). This information will help to assess to what extent
sediments may pass and harm the waterway and cause turbine abrasion.
Geology and Geotechnical Conditions
Background
The purpose of this study is to review the geological conditions for comparing the various project
alternatives. It is based on existing geological maps, literature and observations from a site visit.
Google terrain maps have been used for assessing the structural geology combined with findings from
the site visit and information from available geological and structural maps. At the site visit, 29
registrations were made for assessment of joint configuration and density. As the major part of the
project area is covered by forest and thick overburden, and some areas are not accessible at the
moment, there are uncertainties related to the interpretations. Alternative interpretations are also
found on existing geological maps. For the project alternatives selected for further investigation in the
next stage, the information needs to be verified and improved.
Regional Geology
Topography
Generally the landscape is hilly with mountain ranges up to 2000 m a.s.l.. Within the project area the
highest mountains reach close to 1000 m a.s.l.. The slopes towards the bottom of the valleys are
steep, with 30 degrees' inclination or more. The surface is covered by forest. The soil overburden is
believed to be up to 30 m thick or more, mainly consisting of soil and completely weathered rocks. In
the riverbeds the exposed rock mass is highly to moderately weathered.
Rock types and origin
Geological maps from 1977 (Earth Sciences Research Division, 1977); 1981 (Department of
Geological Engineering. Faculty of Engineering, 1981); 2008 (Department of Geological Survey and
Mineral Exploration, 2008); and 2014 (Myanmar Geosciences Society, 2014), give an overview of the
regional geology of Myanmar. From 1977 to the latest map from 2014 there are changes in the
interpretation. Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show the interpretation around the Project area as shown on
maps from 2008 and 2014. The maps from 1977 and 1981 are similar to the ones from 2008, but with
fewer details.
Figure 5-1: Geological Map from 2008 (Department of Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration, 2008) with
enlargement around the Project area. The arrow shows approximate location of the 3-step lower Power Plant
(PP). The sharp red colour indicates granites, granodiorites, and diorite of mesozoic geological age. The pink
colour is methamorhics rocks, gneiss, shists of precambrium geological age. The whole site is located in
Mesozoic age rock types.
Figure 5-2 Enlargement from Geological Map from 2014 (Myanmar Geosciences Society, 2014). The blue area is
interpreted to be of upper palezoic geological age, also referred to as carboniferous age, generally consisting of
layered limestone, coal shale and sandstones. The red colour means the same as red in 5-1. The pink with
diagonal stripes is metamorphic rocks as in Figure 5-1.The whole Project area is defined as carboniferous.
There is a significant difference in the interpretations of the rock types between the 2014 maps and
the older ones. The field mapping during the field visit, though only few observation points were found,
did not reveal any location with the carboniferous type of rock. It therefore seems likely that the older
maps give the more correct interpretation. Thus, the Project area is believed to be located in Mesozoic
geological age rock types consisting of granites, granodiorites, and diorite. To the east we find
metamorphic rocks types, gneiss and schist. To the west, we have the river delta consisting of
alluvium. To the north and the south, the Mesozoic rock types continue for several km. It shall be
noted that geological investigations were carried out in the area from 2008 to 2014, and the difference
in interpretation should be carefully checked.
Structural geology
Figure 5-3 gives an overview of the main geological structures surrounding the Project area, where the
active Sagaing fault trending south to north, is the most prominent. To the north east of the Project
area, another active fault is called Papun faults (Department of Geological Engineering. Faculty of
Engineering, 1981), also called Mae Ping (Thein & Swe, 2006), trending southeast to northwest.
Further north, prominent active faults are Panlaung fault and Kyaukkyan fault, trending north-south,
both parallel to Sagaing.
Sagaing fault and Papun faults will be the most influential faults in the Project area, both with regard to
seismicity and local structural geology. A major fault zone just north of the Project area, close to the
Mu Thea Village is trending parallel to Papun fault (Mae Ping). See Figure 5-4.
Figure 5-3. Major Fault System around Project Area (indicated with red arrow) (Department of Geological
Engineering. Faculty of Engineering, 1981)
Figure 5-4. Arrow shows Fault just north of Mu Thea Village at Upper Damsite (Thein & Swe, 2006)
Seismicity
Figure 5-5 shows a seismicity map of Myanmar. As mentioned previously, most earthquakes are
related to the Sagaing fault. Major earthquakes have occurred along Sagaing fault close to the Project
area, exceeding 7 on the Richter Scale. Further north and related to the Kyaukkyan fault, an
earthquake occurred in 1912, with magnitude 8.0 on the Richter Scale. In accordance with the records
(Wang, Sieh, Tun, & Lai, 2013), there have been 16 earthquakes over the last 170 years exceeding 7
on the Richter Scale. Related to the Papun fault, north of the Project area, a few earthquakes have
occurred exceeding magnitude 5 on the Richter Scale. Therefore, the Project area will be prone to
earthquake loads, and the implication for structural design and risk for landslides need to be
considered.
Figure 5-5. Seismotectonic Map of Myanmar (Wang, Sieh, Tun, & Lai, 2013)
Local Geology
Geology and Structures
Figure 5-6 (Google Earth view) shows with blue marks the locations of rock outcrops observed during
the field trip. The location at the lower part is close to the portal for access tunnel and tailrace tunnel
for the 1-step Power plant, see Figure 5-8, the middle locations are outcrops along the road to the
mining plant close to the middle reservoir, see Figure 5-9. The upper outcrop is at the river bed just
north of the dam site, see Figure 5-10. All observations indicate that the rock mass consists of
granitoid types of rock, generally having a low to medium joint density, joint volume number Jv being
in the range of 1 to 10. The number of joint sets is generally less than 4, persistency in the order of 1
to 5 m.
Figure 5-6. Locations for Records during the Field Trip

Figure 5-7 shows the joint rose diagram with pole plots in lower hemisphere.
Figure 5-7. Joint Rose Diagram and Pole Plots in lower Hemisphere
Main joint directions are SSS to NNE, NE to SE, EEN to WWS. Note that the number of observations
are too limited to give the correct frequency of the observations (the length of the rose from origo) in
the rose diagram. Joint directions coincide with the directions of potential weakness zones shown on
Drawing A240. Interpretation is done from Google terrain model. In the weakness zones, the jointing
density and the persistence will be much higher with a central part being completely crushed and/or
with clay. In view of the preliminary observations made, and with reservation as to what more detailed
investigations may reveal, all Project alternatives seem to be technically feasible, with a normal
degree of difficulty for tunnelling. Main challenges will be: excavation of the tunnel adits through highly
weathered rock mass; crossing of the major fault zones, especially the one being crossed by the 1-
step alternative and the 2-step headrace tunnel; and excavation of tunnels with alignment parallel to
the main joint direction. If carboniferous rock types are encountered, additional challenges may be
karst and potential pockets of explosive gases in the rock mass.
Figure 5-8: Photo of Blocky Rock Mass close to Portal of 1-Step Access Tunnel
Figure 5-9: Photo. Generally blocky highly weathered Rock Mass at Road Side near the Middle Dam Location
Figure 5-10: Photo. Massive Rock Outcrop at Riverbed north of upper Dam Site.
Ground Water and Rock Mass Permeability
Historically the Project area has precipitation during most of the year except in December, January
and February. (Climate Change Knowledge Portal. World Bank). Since most of the area is covered by
forest and a thick layer of soil, the evaporation of the water that reaches the ground is limited. This
indicates that the ground water level is fairly high, which is an advantage. A higher ground water level
than the static head of the water pressure in the tunnel, means ingress of water into the tunnel, rather
than out-leakage. On the other hand, if the rock mass permeability (the ability of rock mass to lead
water) is high, the ground water may be lowered. This means that water will be lost from the tunnel
due to low ground water level and high permeability. Another important factor is the minimum stress
level in the rock, further discussed in the next section. which will influence both on the ground water
level and the out-leakage from the tunnel. It shall be noted that the present prefeasibility study design
has a maximum static water pressure in the range 25 to 70 m, which is a conservative design
compared to the rock cover. Design modifications may be considered when ground water levels and
permeability are confirmed. Therefore, ground water level and rock mass permeability are parameters
that need to be investigated during the coming phases of project planning. The ground water level is
generally measured in holes drilled from the surface, and later checked in holes drilled in water
bearing zones during the excavation.
Rock Mass Stresses
If the minimum principal stress in the rock mass is less than the future water pressure in the tunnel,
joints in the rock mass may open and cause uncontrolled out-leakage. The minimum stress level in the
rock, which often occurs in one of the horizontal main stress directions, is determined by the rock
cover and the tectonic stresses. The vertical rock cover may by its weight contribute in the order of 0.2
to 0.25 (poisson ratio) to the minimum (horizontal) stress level. Most often tectonic stresses will add to
this, so the minimum horizontal stress level may be up to a factor of 1.0 or higher applied on the
weight of the overlying rock. Considering that the Project is located in an area with active faults, the
tectonic stress may as well be negative. In such areas jointed rock mass may have close to 0
minimum stress level. It should be noted that the ground water level may also indicate the minimum
stress level, if measured in a jointed zone perpendicular to minimum stress level. Mitigation measures
in case of insufficient rock stresses are use of steel and concrete linings, grouting etc. If high tectonic
stress level is proven, design modifications may give environmental benefits as well as cost reduction.
The maximum water pressure is 70 m (Step -1 Alternative), which means that the minimum principal
rock stress must be higher 0.7 MPa. The rock cover in the same area is 190 m (Elevation 700) above
tunnel roof. This gives a vertical rock stress of approximately 2.6 MPa. The proportion between water
pressure in the tunnel and vertical rock stress is 0.26. To be on the safe side this means the actual
stress level needs to be established by stress measurement, further observation of ground water level,
rock mass properties and distance to surface, and clarify need for any mitigation.The same applies to
all Project alternatives.
Landslide Potential
As per today, the risk for landslides during heavy and long lasting rainfall is low due to dense
vegetation. However, this may change for the following reasons:
• Ongoing commercial mining activities causing deforestation.

• Road construction for mining or for the Project.
• Increased water level by dam building which may cause erosion and instability in the
reservoirs.
The consequences for the selected Project alternative need to be evaluated.
Construction Aspects of the Alternatives
Construction Methods
All alternatives are suitable for the Drill and Blast Method as intermediate construction adits may
reduce excavation lengths to around 2.5 km (Step 1 alternative and step 2 alternative, Upper Power
Plant.) The longest headrace tunnels may also be suitable for TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine). Rock
mass drill-ability, crossing of major faults zones, costs etc need to further assessed before use of TBM
may be considered. Use of TMB will reduce the need for construction adits, which means
environmental benefits.
For this study it is at this stage assumed that the Drill and Blast Method will be chosen.
Rock Support
Based on initial observations, an assessment of the rock mass condition has been done based on the
Q-system (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 2015). The Q-system defines 5 Rock Mass Classes with
corresponding Rock Support Classes. By a given tunnel cross section, the rock support class gives
the quantity of various relevant rock support measures. With the given quantity summed up for the
tunnel sections, the cost of the rock support may be estimated. The table below gives a preliminary
assessment of the distribution of the rock mass classes along tunnels for each alternative.
Table 5-1: Distribution of Rock Mass Classes (preliminary)
Investigation and Grouting during Tunnel Excavation
Uncontrolled burst of water inflow is a potential hazard during tunnelling, especially if the tunnel is
excavated with downwards slope or when passing through very poor rock masses. For tunnelling with
downwards slope, all water needs to be pumped out and sudden influx of water may flood the tunnel.
In poor rock mass, tunnel collapses may occur. Therefore, when encountering major weakness zones
in cases with downwards slope tunnelling, probe drilling ahead of the excavation will be required. This
is generally done by percussion drilling with one to 3 holes 25 to 30m ahead of the tunnel face.. If
water is encountered, grouting is performed and therafter checked by another round of test drilling.
Potential costs for test drilling and grouting are added to the cost estimate.
Other Aspects
In case of poor rock masses, it may be required to blast shorter rounds with immediate rock support
for each round to maintain and secure tunnel stability. In addition pre-bolting over the next round will
be required. Costs are considered for the encountered weakness zones.
In extreme cases pre-support is done by poling, steel tubes drilled in front of the face around the
tunnel perimeter. Short excavation rounds and immediate extra support for each round are required.
Such measures are only considered through the major weakness zones.
Dam Location
The dam locations have not been investigated in detail at this stage. It is understood, however, that
the riverbed at some locations is covered by rock boulders and gravel. In order to determine the
optimum dam locations, sounding drillings are needed for checking the overburden. In general the
rock mass is believed to be suitable as foundation for an RCC gravity dam. The river follows an
assumed weakness zone,and jointed and crushed rock may be expected in the central part of the dam
foundation. This should hardly give reason for concern about dam stability, but require some
foundation grouting for leakage control. If the rock mass at the dam location consists of limestone (as
per Geological Map of 2014), any karst features may cause severe leakage, and need to be carefully
checked.
Construction Materials
Crushed fresh granitic rock masses are deemed suitable for concrete aggregate as well as for road
construction. To avoid contamination by weathered rock masses the rock mass to be used should be
taken from the tunnel works, and not from open pits,. Likewise, during the tunnel excavation selection
should be made when depositing to avoid spoil from highly fractured areas and fault zones being
mixed with fresh rock masses.
Some quantity of sand is found at the riverbed in the lower part of the Project area, but any
construction site here will probably need sand from outside for the concrete works. For the upper dam
site, it should be possible to find ampleproper borrow pits for sand in the large river delta somewhere
close to the upper village.
Further Investigations and Assessment.
The following need to be verified:
1. The discrepancies between the later and the older geological maps
2. The rock mass classification, define weakness zones, define any other hazards for the
tunneletc. Conclude whether the weakness zones within the site area are active.
3. Perform a probabilistic study of the earthquake risk to define “Maximum Credible
Earthquake”, (MCE) and “Operational Design Earthquake”. MCE is an earthquake with
expected average recurrence interval of 2,500 years; that is, it has 2-percent probability
of being exceeded in 50 years. In case of an MCE, important structures (like dams) shall
not collapse. OCE, sometimes also called OBE (Operational basic Earthquake) is an
earthquake with an expected average recurremce interval of 475 years. It has 10%
probability for exceedance during a 50 years period. For an OCE the structures shall
remain operational without repair.
4. Define ground water levels and rock mass permeability.
5. Define rock mass stress levels (depending alternative and design solutions)
6. Determine soil overburden at adits, dam foundations and in areas with low rock cover
over the tunnels
7. Test of rock and rock clay samples, analyses of mineral contents for definition of rock
types, hazards for the tunnelling/operation and for construction purposes.
Table 5-2 gives the proposed methods for further investigations.
Table 5-2. Investigation Methods
Outline of Development Alternatives
Introduction
Following the site visit, a number of different development options were preliminarily considered. The
most promising of these were:
• 1-step development with a seasonal (large) reservoir
• 1-step development with a run-of river reservoir
• 2-step development with two projects in cascade
• 3-step development with three projects in cascade
These options are described more in detail in the Site Visit Report (Appendix 3)
The Site Visit Report recommended not spending resources on investigating further the seasonal
reservoir alternative, by the following reasons:
• The seemingly marginal benefit of the seasonal reservoir;

• Bawgata HPP being a “model project” aimed at showing a new way in the hydropower
development in Myanmar; This implies reducing unfavourable environmental and social
impacts as much as possible
• Bawgata HPP being aimed at building trust between KNU and the local people by having the
locals and the wider Karen community benefitting;
• The extremely challenging legacy of hydropower projects in Myanmar.
This Pre-feasibility Study Report follows up the recommendations given in the Site Visit Report. The
Pre-feasibility Study includes a 1-step development and alternatives with two and three plants built in
cascade, all with small run-of-river reservoirs.
General Observations on Layout
The Bawgata River descends about 550 m over a distance of about 15 km from Mu Thea village to the
flat section of the river at about el. 40 m a.s.l.. This difference in head can be utilized in a 1-step
development or by building two or three plants in a cascade development. For utilizing the total head
in a cascade development with shortest possible waterways and maximising the inflow, three dam
sites have been identified. The dam sites are named upper-, middle- and lower dam site.
The upper dam site is identical for all three development scenarios, which will utilize the total head in
one power plant, or in two, or three built in cascade.
The middle dam site is used as intake dam for the middle plant in a 3-step cascade development.
The lower dam site is used as intake dam for the lower plant for both the 3-step and 2-step scenario
as the lower power plant is the same in both cascade alternatives.
All alternatives have sand excluders placed in the headrace tunnel itself. The sand excluders are
assumed to be of the Sedicon type which allows continuous cleaning by gravity through pipes leading
to gullies at safe distance from construction adits or the penstock. The 1-step alternative is proposed
with a steel lined vertical shaft and underground powerhouse whereas the alternative cascade
developments have steel penstocks and powerhouses at surface.
All alternatives are of the run-of-river type with small reservoirs and are assumed to operate in
“peaking mode”. When river inflow is higher than the maximum turbine flow, the turbines will run
continuously at full capacity. For river flow less than the maximum turbine flow, the turbines will be
operated on an intermediate basis, which means that water will be temporarily stored in the reservoir
and released through the turbines at a turbine efficiency as high as possible and when the daily
demand is at its highest.
Environmental Flow
It is assumed that the environmental flow will be:
- Upper dam site: 0,3 m3/s

- Middle dam site: 0,4 m3/s
- Lower dam site: 0,5 m3/s
The environmental flow is deducted from the inflow in the period when the inflow is less than the
maximum turbine discharge.
Scope of Hydraulic Steelworks
Submerged hydraulically operated flood flushing gates will be provided in the dams for flushing out
sediments accumulated in front of the dams during the flood season, and when needed for diverting
water in periods with high floods. In addition, the gates shall drain the reservoir in case of emergency.
One common stop log panel together with stop log guide frame will be provided upstream of each
flood flushing gate to permit access for inspection and maintenance of the gates.
An environmental flow gate will be provided in the lower section of the dams for minimum release of
water to the river downstream. The size of the gate opening will be determined based on
environmental flow requirements. The gate will be hydraulically operated and be provided with a water
level controller to ensure the required minimum release with varying water levels in the reservoir.
An alternative to installing an environmental flow gate could be to install a micro turbine unit in the
dam designed for the required minimum release of water. This has, however, not been considered in
this Pre-feasibility Study. The profitability of such installations could be considered further if the project
should proceed to Feasibility Study stage.
Trashrack panels will be provided in front of the power intake to limit the size and quantity of trash and
foreign objects that may enter the waterway. Trashrack cleaner will be provided to rake the trashrack
of accumulated trash.
A hydraulically operated intake gate will be provided in the power intake. For the 1-step development
the intake gate will be a self-closing fixed wheel gate, which will act as primary emergency closure of
the waterway. For the 2-step and 3-step developments, with powerhouses at surface and with free-
spanning penstocks, the intake gate will be a slide gate, which will act as maintenance gate, and
where the primary emergency closure will be an emergency valve installed at the inlet of the penstock.
Stop log guides will be provided downstream of the intake gate and act as safety precaution if the
intake gate needs to be removed for maintenance. In such case, the flood flushing gates will be
opened to keep the reservoir below the minimum headwater level to prevent water entering the
waterway.
For the 1-step development and the 2-step development upper plant a gate will be installed in the adit
tunnel for future access to the headrace tunnel.
SediCon sluicers will be installed in the sand excluders in the downstream end of the headrace
tunnels for removing sediments that have settled. The system is based on a special flow pattern that is
created when water flows into a slot in the sand excluder where the sediments and water blends into a
mixture. By force of gravity the mixture of sand and water will be eroded and transported through the
pipelines into the river. The pipelines lead into open air through concrete block in the headrace tunnel
and down to a concrete chute at the gully. Due to necessary length of the sand excluder to allow
sediments to settle, two pipelines in series are assumed for removing sediments.
For the 1-step development the penstock will be an embedded steel lining in a vertical shaft, followed
by a sloping embedded steel lining with bifurcation and branch pipes to the two turbines in the
powerhouse.
The 2-step and 3-step developments have surface powerhouses and the penstocks partly exposed
and free spanning on concrete supports and partly embedded in concrete. The upstream end of the
penstock will be provided with a self-closing valve acting as primary emergency closure of the
waterway. The valve will be installed in a chamber at the downstream headrace tunnel entrance.
For the 2-step and 3-step developments with Francis turbines, draft tube gates will be provided at the
tailrace outlet for isolating the draft tubes from the tailrace when access is required for inspecting the
turbines.
For the 1-step development with Pelton turbine the tailrace will have guides for stop logs for
dewatering of the turbine pit.
Scope of Electro-mechanical Works
For each plant alternative the generation capacity is assumed divided into two identical turbine-
generator units. Turbine types, turbine settings etc. have been selected based on turbine flow and
head by use of a turbine software developed by Norconsult. The software is based on general turbine
theory, model data, and design data for a large numbers of prototype turbines delivered through the
years.
The 1-step development has vertical Pelton turbines with the runner above the tailwater level, while all
plants in the 2-step and 3-step developments have Francis turbines with the turbine centre below the
tailwater level. Minimum operational flow through the Pelton turbines has been limited to 20% of
nominal flow, while for the Francis turbines the limit is 40%.
The turbines will be provided with governors allowing frequency control when the power plants operate
on an isolated grid as well as when connected to the national grid. The governors will also include load
control and water level control of the turbines. Simulation of plant stability on isolated grid operation
has not been carried out in this Pre-feasibility Study. Such simulations are needed at the Feasibilbity
Study stage to check or adjust waterway design and dimensions and to determine required generator
moment of inertia etc. in order to ensure regulation stability.
The generators will be with output based on the turbines' rated power and rated power factor of 0.85.
The generators will be with conventional loop cooling systems with primary and secondary circuits with
water/water and water/air heat exchangers.
Transformers are assumed to be oil immersed step up transformers with rating based on the capacity
of the generators. For the 1-step development with underground powerhouse the transformers will be
water-cooled and located underground. For the 2-step and 3-step cascade developments with surface
powerhouses transformers will be of the air-cooled type located outdoor.
This Prefeasibility Study assumes one three phase transformer for each generator. Whether a
common transformer for the two units in each plant is a more favourable solution for the 2-step and 3-
step developments, should be investigated closer at the Feasibility Study stage.
The powerhouses will be provided with AC and DC comprising two station transformers, two battery
banks with chargers, and AC and DC distribution board cables. The control system will be complete
and common for the two units.
Each turbine-generator unit will be provided with a separate cooling water system. A double circuit
system will be considered to keep the cooling water circuits clean and free from organic growth.
For the 1-step development with turbine runners above tailwater level the powerhouse will be self-
drained, hence there is no need for drainage pumps in the powerhouse. For the 2-step and 3-step
developments with turbine runners below tailwater level the powerhouse will be provided with drainage
systems for collecting and pumping out in-leakage water.
Dewatering of the headrace tunnel and penstock will be through the turbines down to a certain level
and further down through drain valves in the powerhouse.
The powerhouse will be provided with a cooling water system for all cooling water requirements
including powerhouse ventilation and air cooling (VAC).
The powerhouse crane for all repair and maintenance works.will be of the overhead bridge type
A workshop will be provided with adequate tools and equipment for carrying out all repair and
maintenance work to be performed at site.
3-Step Cascade Development
The 3-step cascade development comprises three power plants built in a cascade. The plants are
named 3-step Lower Plant, 3-step Middle Plant and 3-step Upper Plant.
The main characteristics of a cascade development is that the tailwater from an upstream power plant
discharges directly into the intake reservoir of the next plant with minimum loss of head in between.
Each plant is foreseen with two identical turbines. All turbines are of the Francis type.
A construction period of 36 months has been estimated for each plant.
Summary with Main Data
The main features and data for the three plants are given in the below table.
Table 6-1: Main Features of Projects in 3-Step Cascade Development
Main Data
Description
Catchment area km2 233.7 207 145.6
Mean Annual Inflow m3/s 18.88 16.72 11.76
Gross Head m 160 100 270
Installed Capacity MW 51 28 54
Maximum Turbine Flow (∑2 units) m3/s 37.76 33.44 23.52
Mean Annual Production GWh 165.5 90.7 175.6
Dam type Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC
• Highest Regulated Water Level m a.s.l. 200 300 570
• Lowest Regulated Water Level m a.s.l. 185 295 555
• Storage Volume mill. m3 3.9 0.70 6.0
• Dam Height m 35 15 35
• Concrete Volume mill.m3 36 000 10 500 36 000
Headrace Tunnel
• Tunnel Cross section m2 26 22 22
• Tunnel Length m 1850 2800 4300
• Construction Adit 1/ Surge tunnel m 500 500 500
• Construction Adit 2/Surge Tunnel m - - -
• Penstock above ground m 360 350 880
Powerhouse at surface
• Machine Hall Floor m a.s.l. 46 206 306
• Tailwater level m a.s.l. 40 200 300
Conceptual Design
All three plants have a concrete dam creating a reservoir for daily regulation, a headrace tunnel, a
penstock and a surface powerhouse.
The three concrete dams have similar layouts with an overflow spillway at the central dam section.
The spillway is of stepped design with a stilling pool at the toe and designed for diverting the 1000-
years recurrence flood.
Diversion during the period of construction is assumed to be through a concrete culvert constructed at
one of the river banks. At the end of the construction period, the diversion culvert will be closed.
The dams will have two radial gates at the base for flushing of sediments accumulating in the
reservoir. Flushing of deposited sediments is necessary to maintain the live reservoir volume. Flushing
of the reservoir is assumed once a year during a period of high river flow.
The power intake is placed close to the dam. Intake and headrace tunnel will be accessible through a
short adit tunnel also used for transport of tunnel spoil during excavation.
A separate gate will be installed in the dam for release of the environmental flow.
The cross section of the headrace tunnel is designed for diverting the maximum turbine flow with
velocity 1.5 m/s. However, the minimum cross-section of tunnels is limited to 22 m2 for tunnel -faces
longer than 1 km due to requirements for transport and aeration during construction. For tunnel faces
less than 1 km long, a cross section of 18 m2 is assumed to be a minimum for the same reason.
At the downstream end of the headrace tunnels the construction adit is also used as surge chamber,
which is required for controlling frequency variation and pressure rise during plant operation.
Sand excluders are incorporated in all plants. The bulk of the sediment transported by the river will be
trapped in the reservoirs. These deposits will be flushed through the dam gates. During such
operation, the power plant has to stop and the flushing gates in the dam be fully opened. Some
sediment will enter the headrace tunnel. To collect and flush out these sediments it is proposed to
install the Sedicon sediment handling system. This system will trap and flush out sediments on a
continuous basis without need for stopping plant operation. The sediment will be flushed out by gravity
through pipes placed in the plugs in the adits or penstocks to nearby gullies.
The penstocks are assumed to be made of steel and designed with a diameter corresponding to a flow
velocity of approximately 4.5 m/s. The penstocks will be partly embedded with a concrete cap. In the
upstream end of the penstock, a valve is installed for emergency closure of the penstock in case of
penstock failure.
The powerhouse is for all three power plants constructed at surface as a concrete and steel structure.
Hydraulic Steelworks
The following hydraulic steelworks has been proposed for the 3-Step Cascade Development
Table 6-2: Hydraulic Steelworks for 3-Step Cascade Development
Main Data
Description
Flood flushing gates, no - 2 2 2
• Type - Radial gate Radial gate Radial gate
• Size of opening m 4.5 x 3.0 4.0 x 3.0 3.5 x 2.5
• Design head m w.c 30.0 12.5 30.0

Stoplogs for flood flushing gates Bulkheads Bulkheads Bulkheads
Eco-flow gate, no 1 1 1
• Type - Slide gate Slide gate Slide gate

• Flow release m3/s 0.3 0.3 0.3
• Design head m w.c 30.0 12.5 30.0
Intake trashrack, no 1 1 1
• Size of opening m2 37.6 33.2 23.2
• Design head m w.c 10 10 10
Intake trashrack cleaner - 1 1 1
Intake gate, no 1 1 1
• Type - Slide gate Slide gate Slide gate
• Design head m w.c 21.5 12.5 22.5
Intake stoplog guides, no 1 1 1
SediCon sluicer incl. pipelines, no 1 1 1
Penstock, no 1 1 1
• Installation - Free-spanning Free-spanning Free-spanning
• Length m 360 350 880
• Material - Steel Steel Steel
• Diameter m 3.25 3.1 2.6
• Internal design pressure (excl. pressure rise) m w.c 50 -163 25 - 100 45 - 270
Emergency valve, no 1 1 1
• Type - Butterfly valve Butterfly valve Butterfly valve
• Diameter m 3.25 3.1 2.6
Main Data
Description
Draft tube gates, no 2 2 2
• Type - Bulkhead Bulkhead Bulkhead
Electro-mechanical Works
The following electro-mechanical works has been proposed for the 3-Step Cascade Development
Table 6-3: Electro-mechanical Works for 3-Step Development
Main Data
Description
Turbines, no - 2 2 2
Type - Francis Francis Francis
• Shaft configuration - Vertical Vertical Vertical
• Rated head m 155 95 265
• Rated turbine flow m3/s 18.8 16.6 11.6
• Rotating speed rpm 500 500 600
• Rated output at rated head MW 26.8 14.6 28.4

Governors - PID PID PID
Inlet valves, no - 2 2 2
• Type - Butterfly valve Butterfly valve Spherical valve
• Diameter m 1.75 1.75 1.1
Generators, no - 2 2 2
• Type - Synchronous Synchronous Synchronous
• Power factor, cos ɸ - 0.85 0.85 0.85
• Rated output MVA 31.5 17.1 33.3
Transformers, no - 2 2 2
• Type - Air-cooled Air-cooled Air-cooled
• Rated output MVA 31.5 17.1 33.3
Control system, no - 1 1 1
High-voltage switchgear, no - 1 1 1
Powerhouse crane, no - 1 1 1
• Type - Overhead Overhead Overhead
• Capacity ton 65 40 65
Workshop tools and equipment -
2-Step Development
The 2-step cascade development comprises two power plants built in a cascade. The plants are
named 2-step Lower Plant and 2-step Upper Plant. The 2-step Lower Plant is identical with the 3-step
Lower Plant of the 3-step cascade development.
Each plant is foreseen with two identical turbines. The turbines are of the Francis type.
Construction periods of 36 months and 48 months have been estimated for the 2-step Lower Plant
and the 2-step Upper Plant, respectively.
The main features and data for the two plants are given in the following table.
Table 6-4: Main Features of Projects in 2-Step Cascade Development
Main Data
Description
Lower PP Upper PP
Catchment area km2 233.7 145.6
Mean Annual Inflow m3/s 18.88 11.76
Gross Head m 160 370
Installed Capacity MW 51 74
Maximum Turbine Flow (∑2 units) m3/s 37.76 23.52
Mean Annual Production GWh 165.5 240.7
Dam type Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC
• Highest Regulated Water Level m a.s.l. 200 570
• Lowest Regulated Water Level m a.s.l. 185 555
• Storage Volume mill. m3 3.9 6.0
• Dam Height m 35 35
• Concrete Volume mill.m3 36 000 36 000
Headrace
• Tunnel Cross section m2 26 22
• Tunnel Length m 1850 9500
• Construction Adit 1, m 500 500
• Construction Adit 2/Surge m 1100

Tunnel
• Penstock above ground 360 1750
Powerhouse at surface
• Machine Hall Floor m a.s.l. 46 206
• Tailwater Level m a.s.l. 40 200
Conceptual Design
The 2-step cascade development consists of an upper powerplant that combines the upper and
middle plants of the 3-step cascade development, and a lower plant that is identical with the lower
plant in the 3-step cascade development.
In principle the same layout is foreseen as for the 3-step development alternatives.
Proposed hydraulic steelworks for 2-step development are indicated in the table below.
Table 6-5: Hydraulic Steelworks for 2-Step Cascade Development
Main Data
Description
Lower PP Upper PP
Flood flushing gates, no 2 2
• Type - Radial gate Radial gate
• Size of opening m 4.5 x 3.0 3.5 x 2.5
• Design head m 30.0 30.0

w.c.
Stoplogs for flood flushing gates Bulkheads Bulkheads
Eco-flow gate, no 1 1
• Type - Slide gate Slide gate

• Flow release m3/s 0.3 0.3
w.c.
Intake trashrack, no 1 1
• Size of opening m2 37.6 23.2
w.c.
Intake trashrack cleaner - 1 1
Intake gate, no 1 1
• Type - Slide gate Slide gate
w.c.
Intake stoplog guides, no 1 1
Adit gate, no 0 1
• Type - - Arched gate
Main Data
Description
Lower PP Upper PP
• Size of opening m - 2.8 x 2.8
• Design head m - 70
w.c.
SediCon sluicer incl. pipelines, no 1 1
Penstock, no 1 1
• Installation - Free-spanning Free-spanning
• Length m 360 1750
• Material - Steel Steel
• Diameter m 3.25 2.6
• Internal design pressure (excl. pressure rise) m 50 - 163 60 – 370
w.c.
Emergency valve, no 1 1
• Type - Butterfly valve Butterfly valve
• Design head m 60 72
w.c.
Draft tube gates, no 2 2
• Type - Bulkhead Bulkhead
• Design head m 2 2.5
w.c.
Proposed electro-mechanical equipment for a 2-step development is indicated in the table below.
Table 6-6: Electro-mechanical Works for 2-Step Development
Main Data
Description
Lower PP Upper PP
Turbines, no - 2 2
Type - Francis Francis
• Shaft configuration - Vertical Vertical
• Rated head m 155 365
• Rated turbine flow m3/s 18.8 11.6
• Rotating speed rpm 500 600
• Rated output at rated head MW 26.8 33.8

Governors - PID PID
Inlet valves, no - 2 2
• Type - Butterfly valve Spherical valve
Generators, no - 2 2
• Type - Synchronous Synchronous
• Power factor, cos ɸ - 0.85 0.85
• Rated output MVA 31.5 39.7
Transformers, no - 2 2
• Type - Air-cooled Air-cooled
• Rated output MVA 31.5 39.7
Control system, no - 1 1
High-voltage switchgear, no - 1 1
Powerhouse crane, no - 1 1
• Type - Overhead Overhead
• Capacity ton 65 80
1-Step Development
The 1-step development utilizes the total available head in one underground power plant. The water is
returned to Bawgata River through a tailrace tunnel.
The plant has two identical Pelton turbines.
A construction period of 48 months has been estimated for this alternative.
The main feaures and data for the 1-step development are given in the below table.
Table 6-7: Main Features of Projects in 1-Step Development
Main Data
Description
1-Step
Catchment area km2 145.6
Mean Annual Inflow m3/s 11.76
Gross Head m 525
Installed Capacity MW 105

Maximum Turbine Flow (∑2 units) m3/s 23.52
Mean Annual Production GWh 341.5
Dam type Concrete/RCC
• Highest Regulated Water Level m a.s.l. 570
• Lowest Regulated Water Level m a.s.l. 555
• Storage Volume mill. m3 6.0
• Dam Height m 35
• Concrete Volume mill.m3 36 000
Headrace
• Tunnel Cross section m2 22
• Tunnel Length m 10 600
• Construction Adit 1, m 700
• Construction Adit 2/Surge Tunnel m 1 100
Vertical shaft
• Diameter m 2.6
• Shaft length m 435
Powerhouse underground
• Machine Hall Floor m a.s.l. 66
• Tailwater Level m a.s.l. 45
Conceptual Design
The 1-step development has the same dam site and dam layout as the upper plant for the 2-step and
3-step developments. The headrace consists of a 10.6 km long headrace tunnel and a 435 m long
vertical steel lined shaft. A 60 m long steel lined tunnel connects the vertical shaft to the underground
powerhouse. The turbined flow is discharged back to the river through a 2 km long tailrace tunnel.
The headrace tunnel has two construction adits, which limit the length of the tunnel faces. The
downstream adit is also serving as surge chamber/tunnel, which is required for controlling frequency
variation and pressure rise during plant operation. The upper construction adit has a gated concrete
plug for access to the middle part of the tunnel and to the sand excluder for inspection and
maintenance work.
The vertical shaft is excavated by drilling a pilot-hole and reaming the shaft upwards to its final
dimension. The steel lining is erected from the top of the shaft and fully embedded..
The underground powerhouse has two identical Pelton turbines. A separate cavern is foreseen for the
transformers and gas-insulated switchgear.
The access tunnel also includes power cables from the transformer cavern to an outdoor switchyard.
Proposed hydraulic steelworks for a 1-step Development are listed in the below table.
Table 6-8: Hydraulic Steelworks for a 1-step Development
Description Main Data

Flood flushing gates, no 2
• Type - Radial gate
• Size of opening m 3.5 x 2.5
• Design head m w.c 30.0

Stoplogs for flood flushing gates Bulkheads
Eco-flow gate, no 1
• Type - Slide gate

• Flow release m3/s 0.3
Intake trashrack, no 1
• Size of opening m2 23.2
Intake trashrack cleaner, no - 1
Intake gate, no 1
• Type - Fixed wheel gate
Intake stoplog guides, no 1
Adit gate, no 1
• Type - Arched gate
• Design head m w.c 70
SediCon sluicer incl. pipelines, no - 1
Penstock, no 1
• Installation - Embedded
• Length m 495
• Material - Steel
• Diameter m 2.6
• Internal design pressure (excl. pressure rise) m w.c 70 - 515
Proposed electro-mechanical works for a 1-step development are listed in the below table.
Table 6-9: Electro-mechanical Works for a 1-Step Development
Description Main Data

Turbines, no - 2
• Type - 6-jet Pelton
• Shaft configuration - Vertical
• Rated head m 525
• Rated turbine flow m3/s 2×11.6
• Rotating speed rpm 500
• Rated output at rated head MW 53.5

Governors - PID
Inlet valves, no - 2
• Type - Spherical valve
• Diameter m 1.1
Generators, no - 2
• Type - Synchronous
• Power factor, cos ɸ - 0.85
• Rated output MVA 62.9
Transformers, no - 2
• Type - Air-cooled
• Rated output MVA 62.9
Control system, no - 1
High-voltage switchgear, no - 1
Powerhouse crane, no - 1
• Type - Overhead
• Capacity ton 110
Grid connection
It is assumed to construct a transmission line from the proposed project site at Bawgata to the
nearest, centrally located connection point to the national grid, which is Tharyargone sub-station
located some 30 km from Bawgata. The substation is prepared for connection of 230 kV and 33 kV,
but is lacking capacity today for connection of additional power. Alternatively, the project could be
connected to the switch yard of Shwegyin Hydropower Plant and use the 230 kV line from Shwegyin
to the national grid in Tharyargone. A transmission line to Shwegyin switch yard would have
approximately the same length as the transmission line directly to Tharyargone. Which alignment to
finally chose should be concluded in the feasibility study.
For the purpose of the Pre-feasibility Study and in order to compare costs between the different
development options, the cost estimate prepared for each plant is based on a stand-alone project.
That means each plant in the cascade developments is connected to the Tharyargone sub-station by
a specific 132 kV transmission line. The 1-step development is, due to its size, based on a 230 kV
transmission line for connection at Tharyagone. For all power plants it is assumed that a 11kV line is
built between the powerhouse and the dam for power supply to the dam gates. The transmission line
costs include step-up transformers at the powerhouse and the transmission line itself, but do not
include any costs for connection to, or extension of, the Tharyargone sub-station.
If the whole potential of the Bawgata River will be developed, the most obvious solution seems to be
extending Tharyargone substation with one 230 kV line bay to allow connection of Bawgata at 230 kV
level, alternatively connect Bawgata to Shwegyin HEP as mentioned above.
However, if only the lower plant should be realized in the first place, a 132 kV transmission line to
Tharyargone sub-station should be considered to reduce the initial costs. This should, if relevant, be
closer investigated at the Feasibility Study stage.
In case both plants in the 2-step development or all plants in the 3-step development are built, an
option is evacuating power at 22 kV level to a common 230 kV step-up transformer at the lower plant.
This should be considered in connection with a local grid system to be established for electrification of
the area, including local and nearby communities. This should be studied further during the Feasibility
Study stage when it is concluded which plants that will be realised.
Electrification of Local and Nearby Communities
A local grid for for power supply to the dam sites will be needed. This grid can be extended to benefit
the local and nearby communities as well.
Based on what appears in the Draft ESIA Scoping Report (Appendix 6), there are local expectations
that the Bawgata Project will supply villages as per the overview indicated in the table below. The
table indicates the required lengths of transmission lines to each community from the switchyard of a
Bawgata Lower Plant and lengths of distribution lines within the villages.
Based on this, a total of approximately 46 km local grid transmission line and 79 km of distribution
lines would be needed for power supply to about 1,600 households. In addition, about 15 step-down
transformers would be needed in the villages.
Below is an overview of local and nearby communities, expecting to benefit from community
electrification.
Table 6-10: Transmission and Distribution Line Lengths for Village Electrification
TL length DL length
Village HHs (km) (km)
Bawgata-Auk-Area 1146 11 57.3
Na Pei Kho 8 4.1 0.4
Sat Le 96 9.2 4.8
Law Mu Pal 126 0 6.3
Mu Thea 87 15 4.35
Khe Doe 19 6.5 0.95
Khe Doe Sub-villages 100 0 5
Total in area 1582 45.8 79.1
A very preliminary estimate of the power demand in nerby loal communities have been made
assuming that a houshold will need 0,25 kVA, a school 10 kVA, a health post 3 kVA and business in
general about 2 kVA each. This will be sufficient to meet a “Tier-3” level of electrification as per
SE4All’s Gobal Tracking Framework (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The
World Bank and the International Energy Agency, 2013)
Table 6-11: Estimated Power Demand for nearby Villages
Village Domestic Public/ 32-160

House- Scho health Busi- power business Total kVA
holds -ols post ness demand demand demand trafos 5 kVA
Village (No.) (no) (no) (no) (kW) (kW) (kW) (no) trafos
Bawgata-Auk-Area 1146 6 3 10 287 89 376 4
Na Pei Kho 8 2 0 2 1
Sat Le 96 1 1 24 13 37 1
Law Mu Pal 126 1 32 10 42 1
Mu Thea 87 2 1 5 22 33 55 1
Khe Doe 19 1 5 10 15
Khe Doe Sub-
villages 100 1 25 10 35 7
Total in area 1582 12 5 15 407 165 562 7 8
In the project area we have not identified any existing industries that would have a high power
demand. If a large scale mining industry is established in the area, this industry would probably need a
substantial amount of electric power also during daytime.
Which villages to benefit from community electrification served by the Project and financing of such
services, are matters for the developer to discuss and elaborate with the communities.
The costs for electrification of nearby villages has been included in the cost estimate of the various
alternatives. For more detail on costs and distribution of costs for the different alternatives, see
Chapter 7 Cost Estimate.
Small Scale Hydropower Project for Benefit to nearby Communities
If none of the described developments above should be realized, an alternative scenario could be
development of one or more small-scale hydropower plants together with a local grid system allocated
primarily to generate electrification for the benefit of local and nearby communities.
Potential Sites for Minihydro Projects
There are several potential sites for small-scale hydropower development in the Bawgata River Valley,
both along the main river course and on the tributaries. Some sites assumed to be the most feasible
are shown on the following map:
Figure 6-1: Some potential Sites for Minihydro Projects

We have estimated the potential of the different sites based on a map analysis. For discharge
estimation we have applied the same ratio between catchment size and annual mean flow as derived
in the hydrological analysis (Chapter 4)
The design flow for a community hydropower plant is not optimized based on financial parameters, but
is determined based on the criteria that the community should have a stable supply of electricity most
of the year. From the duration curve (Sub-section 4.3.4.3Error! Reference source not found.) we
see that in 80-90 % of the time there is a flow of 10% x Qmid, or higher. Hence, for estimation we have
used a design flow of 10% x Qmid for the different projects.
Estimated key features of some possible mini-hydro plants are shown in the table below.
Table 6-12: Key Features of some potential Minihydro Plants
Catchment Qdesign Capacity
Project (km²) Qmid (m³/s) Head (m) (kW)
Sin We Law O Microhydro 11 0.89 0.09 90 60
Pa Lu Law Ka Lo Minihydro 13 1.05 0.11 245 190
Upper Bawagata Minihydro 150 12.13 1.21 105 940
Lower Bawgata Minihydro 236 19.09 1.91 75 1050
We have not developed cost figures for the various projects. However, experience from other
countries shows that the specific cost (cost/KW) tend to be significantly higher for micro- and
minihydro projects compared to large hydro (ESMAP, 2000).
For utilizing Bawgata River purely for electrification of the he local villages, several options could be
envisaged:
• Developing one larger minihydro (e.g. Upper Bawgata MH or Lower Bawgata MH) with long
transmission lines for supply of the whole area in one common isolated grid.
• Develop one small plant (e.g. Sin We Law O microhydro) for electrification of the upper
villages (Mu Thea/ Khe Doe) and one larger plant (e.g Lower Bawgata MH) for electrification
of the lower villages (Bawgata Auk - Sat Le). In this case, there would be two separate
isolated grids and shorter transmission lines.
• Develop one small plant (e.g. Sin We Law O microhydro) and an isolated grid for electrification
of the upper villages (Mu Thea/ Khe Doe) and connect the lower villages to the national grid.
Please note that these projects have not been investigated in detail, and the proposed locations of
structures have not been verified in the field. Hence, the indicated locations and key features should
be understood as indicative only. In case the Client should wish to proceed with small-scale
hydropower development for community electrification, a separate study should be initiated to
investigate this possibility further.
Challenges of Community Minihydro Plants
Technically, the small- or minihydro plants would be similar to the larger scale hydropower plant, but
we would seek to simplify the design and construction methods to keep construction costs as low as
possible and to maximise the potential local labour contribution to the project. Still, experience shows
that mini- and microhydro projects generally are more expensive per kW capacity than the larger
plants.
If a small-scale plant were to be built on the main Bawgata River course it would probably be
challenging to build an intake that would be strong enough to withstand the floods in the river and to
exclude the sediment load without incurring disproportionate expenses.
As can be seen from the map, three out of four of the potential sites are located far from the load
centres, which means that these projects would require relatively long transmission lines. Such
transmission lines would add significantly to the project ccost.
Operating and maintaining a minihydro plant on an isolated grid can be challenging and require
technical skills and access to necessary tools and spare parts. Due to the limited size of the project, it
will not be feasible to hire well-qualified staff from outside, and the project would need to rely on local
staff for operation and maintenance. For the sustainability of the project, it would be necessary to
generate some revenue to be able to pay for operational staff and for maintenance and repair. An
isolated grid supplying the villages near Bawgata River would be dependent on the local villagers'
ability and willingness to pay, and the project would need to be organised properly to be able to
manage the revenue collection and the operation of the local grid system. These operational and
managerial issues have proven to be very challenging for many community operated power plants.
The demand for electricity would most likely grow as people get more used to having electricity
available and start buying more electric appliances. An isolated grid with one single power plant will
have less opportunity to respond to growth in consumption. Although there would likely be spare
capacity in a minihydro grid at the start of the project, a power deficit could very soon develop.
Connecting Villages to the National Grid
The villages in the lower reaches of the Bawgata river are located relatively closely to the national grid.
It is not known exactly where the outer border of the national grid is in the area, but it is assumed that
all the lower villages can be reached with transmission/distribution lines in the range of 3-15 km. The
upper villages are further away, in the range of 20-30 km. Still, at such distances, it is likely that the
cost of extending the grid to these villages would be lower than building a separate hydropower plant
for supply to this area.
Even if a small hydropower plant is built for local power supply, it would be favourable to connect this
to the national grid. Such connection would allow surplus power, not consumed by the communities
during wet seasons, to be transmitted to the national grid. It will also ensure power supply to the
communities from the national grid during the dry season and when the power plant by some reason is
out of operation.
Recommendations regarding Development for Local Electrification
In Bawgata River and its tributaries it is technically possible to develop small-scale hydropower plants
for local power supply. However, with expectedly high specific development costs and the relatively
poor local communities as customers to pay for the electricity, it is unlikely that such development
scenario could be financially feasible. Hence, it would most likely need financial support (grant
support) and should be viewed as a community development endeavour and not a commercial
undertaking. Secondly, managing and operating a hydropower plant and a local distribution system
are challenging tasks and require financial, technical and organisational capacity. Experience from
other community operated plants shows that there is a significant risk of failure of such projects.
A power plant built in Bawgata River only for local consumption would be designed for supplying
steady power to the community all year and would only utilize a small part of the hydropower potential
in the river.
The villages along the lower reaches of Bawgata river are located relatively close to the national grid,
and the cost of extending the national grid to these villages would probably be lower than building a
separate hydropower plant with transmission lines from such plant.
Therefore, we would recommend as follows:
If a large scale hydropower plant is built in Bawgata Area, a community electrification scheme should
be planned based on supply from this plant or from the national grid via the power plant’s grid
connection
If a large scale hydropower development is not realised in Bawgata river, the villages in the lower
reaches of Bawgata area should be electrified by extending the national grid to these communities.
Considering the long transmission line required to the Mu Thea/ Khe Doe area, developing a micro
hydro with an isolated grid for these villages could be considered as an alternative to extending the
national grid to these villages.
Cost Estimate, Preliminary Optimization and

Implementation Schedule
General Assumptions
The cost estimates presented in this chapter are based on the estimates of the main quantities for civil
construction works and hydro-mechanical and electro-mechanical equipment to be supplied and
erected. The costs include all contractors’ general costs and temporary works as well as profit. The
estimates for equipment costs are based on international manufacturers’ current prices and include
design, manufacture, tests and inspections, transportation, erection and site testing, commissioning
and spare parts. The costs do not include taxes and duties or interest during the period of
construction. Physical contingencies have been included by adding another 15% to civil works and
10% to equipment costs.
In total three potential dam-sites have been identified based on the longitudinal profile and topography
along the Bawgata River. The hydropower potential of Bawgata River can be developed in one step
from the upper dam-site, in a two-step cascade involving the upper and lower dam sites or as a three–
step development utilising all three dam sites.
Unit Rates
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) cost base for hydropower plants has been
used as basis for developing unit rates for all costs that include civil works, hydraulic steelworks,
electro-mechanical works and transmission line.
In addition, the unit prices for civil works, hydraulic steelworks, turbines, generators, main transformers
and high voltage switchgear and transmission line have been assessed and modified based on recent
tender prices obtained in construction contracts in South East Asia and on comparison with feasibility
studies made recently for other hydropower projects in the Region.
In the following the main unit rates are presented. The price level is 2016.
Table 7-1: Unit Rates (2016 price level)
Description Unit Unit Rates in USD

GROUND WORKS
Site and reservoir clearance m2 0.1
Common excavation m3 4.0
Rock excavation in open m3 15
Preparation of dam foundation m2 30
Grout curtain m2 80
Backfill, common m3 8
Rockfill, structural m3 12
CONCRETE WORKS
Structural concrete including formwork and m3 350
reinforcement
Description Unit Unit Rates in USD

Mass concrete m3 130
RCC-concrete m3 100
Concrete-support penstock m3 350
Concrete anchor blocks m3 250
UNDERGROUND WORKS
Tunnel excavation 18 m2 incl. rock support m 2700
Shaft excavation incl. rock support m 7000
Shotcrete with fiber m3 600
Concrete lining m3 350
Cavern excavation incl. rock support m3 80
ACCESS ROADS
Access roads, plain unpaved km 85000
Access roads, mountainous unpaved km 140000
OPERATORS VILLAGE
Housing m2 500
Infrastructure, % of housing cost % 20
TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION LINES
11kV km 20000
132 kV, double circuit line km 150000
230 kV, double circuit line km 230000
In an upcoming Feasibility Study phase, specific inquiries are envisaged towards suppliers of the main
electromechanical equipment.
The ESIA-related costs are based on preliminary assessments made by the environmental team.
The indirect costs (mobilization, engineering, project administration and contingencies) are estimated
as a percentage of the direct costs of the project. These results are intended to enable comparison
between project alternatives, on equivalent basis, and for supporting the design optimization process.
At present quantities are derived from 1: 50 000 scale maps and simple profiles assessed from
satellite photos and photographs. In the Feasibility Study, the civil work costs will be determined based
on quantities derived from more detailed maps to be prepared during that phase. Unit rates and costs
will as well be updated to reflect actual prices at the time of the Feasibility Study.
Cost of Electrification of nearby Villages
In the cost estimates, the following assumptions have been made as shown in the table below for
electrification of nerbay villages:
Table 7-2: Rough cost estimate for electrification of nearby villages
Unit Unit rate Amount Total (USD)
Transmission Line from PH to village clusters km 20 000 45,8 916 000
Distribution trafos 11/0.4 kV -32-160 kVA pcs 25 000 7 175 000
Distribution trafos 11/0.4 kV -5 kVA pcs 5 000 8 40 000
LV distribution line km 15 000 79,1 1 186 500
House connections pcs 500 1582 791 000
Total ex. Contingencies, planning, design, etc 3 108 500
Contingencies, planning, design, etc % 20 % 621 700
3 730 200
Local contribution HH 200 1582 -316 400
Total less local contribution: 3 413 800
The costs estimated are very preliminary. The local transmission and distribution grid systems and
number of consumers and their estimated consumption have to be investigated closer in the
Feasibility Study stage.
The costs for electrification of nearby villages have been included with the same amount for all three
development scenarios. For the three-step scenario development, the costs have been devided on
Lower, Middle and Upper powerplant pro-rata relative to the installed capacity. This assumes that all
three power plants in the cascade will be constructed and corresponding costs allocated to each plant.
For the two-step alternative the costs allocated for electrification of villages to the lower powerplant are
the same as for the three step alternative as the Lower power plant is identical for the two alternatives.
Using the pro-rata distribution of costs for the two step alternative would have given a slightly higher
cost for the lower powerplant compared to the three-step development, but is disregarded for the
purpose of this study.
Below is the proposed cost of electrification of nearby villages for different alternative developments.
Table 7-3: Distribution of costs for rural electrification on the different development options
Description Proposed cost (Mill. USD)

1-Step Dev. 3,41

Upper project 2,09
Lower project 1,32

Upper project 1,38
Middle project 0,71
Lower project 1,32
Preliminary Optimization based on the 3-Step Lower Power Plant

Alternative
This optimisation of installed capacity has only been made for the 3-Step Lower Power Plant The
reason is that this alternative is found to be the most representative plant layout among the studied
options. The optimisation process will determine the most economic installed capacity and the
corresponding rated turbine flow. For the other alternatives, the installed capacity have been chosen
by using the same ratio between mean annual river flow and rated turbine flow. This method can be
justified as all Project alternatives are of the run-of-river type with only small reservoirs that will have
minor influence on the optimisation.results.
A preliminary optimisation of the installed capacity has been done by estimating costs and energy
production for four different rated turbine flows. The turbine flows investigated correspond to turbine
flows 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 and 2.3 times the mean annual inflow to the intake. Experience from similar projects
shows that the optimum installed capacity will be within this range of flow.
Hydrology
As basis for the optimisation, the Shwegyin daily flow series available for the period 1972-2005 have
been used. Available flow records contain some gaps from December 1995 to March 1996. These
gaps were filled in with the value associated with the corresponding monthly average for those dates.
The methodology selected for this preliminary hydrological study consists of scaling by area the flow
records available at the gauging station Shwegyin. As discussed in Sub-section 4.3.7, flow records
from gauging station Shwegyin have been downscaled by a factor 0.51.This method is based on the
assumption that the Shwegyin-basin and the Project-basin have a similar hydrological behaviour and
thus respond in the same way to a given precipitation. The precipitation over the Shwegyin and
Project basins is assumed to be the same and equal to Pp=3654 mm for an average year.
Flow duration curve for the lower dam site has been used for calculating the energy production for
optimization of installed capacity. Environmental flow has been taken into account in the production
estimate of the lower dam-site by releasing 0.5 m3/s when the inflow is less than the maximum turbine
discharge. Correspondingly the energy production for the middle and upper dam-sites have been
estimated taking into account an environmental release of 0.4 m3/s and 0.3 m3/s respectively.
Below is the flow duration curves used for calculating the energy production.
Flow Duration Curve

260
240
220
200
180
Upper
160 Middle
Q (m3/s)
140 Lower
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(%)
Figure 7-1: Flow Duration Curves as Basis for Optimization
The curves are based on mean monthly flow values distributed daily by using daily mean flow data
recorded at Shwegyn gauging station. This is done in order to get a well distributed daily flow in a
year.
Energy Production
All power plant alternatives are of the run-of-river type. This means when the river flow exceeds the
rated (maximum) turbine flow, the units will be operated continuously at maximum capacity.
For river flows less than the maximum turbine flow, the daily/weekly reservoir can store water on short
term and utilise it at as high turbine efficiency as possible. This mode of operation is envisaged during
the dry season when river flow is less than the maximum turbine flow.
The energy production for each alternative has been arrived at by calculating the utilisable volume of
inflow for each installed capacity and multiplying it by the energy equivalent for the plant. As the
reservoirs are relatively small, no effect by dampening of smaller floods has been taken into account.
During the wet season, some excess water will be stored in the reservoir. As the reservoir is quite
small, however, almost all excess water will spill over the dam. Only a volume of water corresponding
to the reservoir volume has been included when calculating the yearly energy. It is assumed that the
water stored in the reservoir will be released during the dry season.
The energy equivalent [kWh/m3] is determined by using formula below:
" = # ∙ ∙ η ∙ $ /3600
Where: ρ = specific weight of water = 1000 kg/m3
g = acceleration of gravity = 9.81 m2/s
η = coefficient of efficiency for electro-mechanical equipment
= 0.93 (turbine) x 0.95 (generator and transformator)
= 0.88
Hn = Net head [m]
= Gross head - Headloss (2%)
For the lowest hydropower scheme in the 3-step cascade development, the energy equivalent is found
to be 0.38 kWh/m3.
Energy production has been determined for four different installed capacities for the lowest plant in the
3-step cascade development with turbine flow of 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 and 2.3 multiplied by the mean annual
inflow. The result is shown in the table below.
Table 7-4: Energy Production and Key Figures for Alternatives Used in Optimization
Description Unit Alternatives for lower HP scheme, 3-Step
Cascade Development
1.4 Qm 1.7 Qm 2.0 Qm 2.3 Qm
Volume of water mill. m3 384.79 422.63 456.18 483.09

through turbines
Total installed capacity MW 36 44 51 59
Energy production GWh/yr 141.7 156.1 168.9 179.1
Transmission losses 2% 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.6
Energy production incl. Gwh/yr 138.9 153.0 165.5 175.5
transmission losses
Cost Estimate
Construction costs have been calculated based on estimated quantities and the unit costs presented
in Sub-Section 7.2. Electro-mechanical works have been calculated for each investigated capacity.
The following main design criteria have been used for determining the quantities and costs.
• Design flow velocity in headrace tunnel 1.5 m/s

• Design flow velocity in penstock 4.5 m/s
• Concrete/RCC gravity dams.
• Flood release spillway at damcrest with stepped spillway
• Design Flood; 1000 years return period
• Design Flood for period of construction; 20 years return period.
Construction cost for all four investigated capacities included in the optimization is shown in the table
below.
Table 7-5: Construction Costs for Alternatives Used in Optimization

Description Construction cost for different alternative of discharge (USD)
1.4 Qm 1.7 Qm 2.0 Qm 2.3 Qm
Cost estimate for civil work

Access, construction roads
and operators village 3 080 000 3 080 000 3 080 000 3 080 000
Dam and intake 11 521 316 11 534 284 11 547 251 11 560 219
Headrace tunnel 6 788 574 8 480 389 9 580 609 10 677 651
Penstock 1 039 607 1 166 262 1 293 658 1 421 795
Portal and sand excluder
system 440 000 490 000 540 000 590 000
Powerhouse 1 741 300 1 851 960 1 954 205 2 050 675
Cost civil works 24 610 797 26 602 894 27 995 723 29 380 340
Contractor P&G, 20% 4 922 159 5 320 579 5 599 145 5 876 068
Physical unforeseen civil
works, 15% 3 691 620 3 990 434 4 199 358 4 407 051
Total cost 33 224 576 35 913 907 37 794 226 39 663 459
Turbines 4 930 000 5 750 000 6 330 000 7 060 000
Generators 3 970 000 4 670 000 5 610 000 6 080 000
Transformer 1 400 000 1 630 000 1 870 000 2 100 000
AC and DC supply 1 750 000 1 750 000 1 750 000 1 750 000
Outdoor conventional 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000
switchgear
Control system 1 400 000 1 400 000 1 400 000 1 400 000
Cooling water systems 650 000 650 000 650 000 650 000
Firewater system 50 000 50 000 50 000 50 000
Drainage system 300 000 300 000 300 000 300 000
Dewatering system 550 000 550 000 550 000 550 000
Powerhouse crane 250 000 280 000 320 000 350 000
Workshop tools and 150 000 150 000 150 000 150 000
equipment
Total cost 16 900 000 18 680 000 20 480 000 21 940 000
Flood flushing gates 450 000 450 000 450 000 450 000
Stoplogs flood flushing gates 250 000 250 000 250 000 250 000
Environmental flow gate 100 000 100 000 100 000 100 000
Intake trashrack 110 000 120 000 140 000 150 000
Description Construction cost for different alternative of discharge (USD)

1.4 Qm 1.7 Qm 2.0 Qm 2.3 Qm
Intake trashrack cleaner 300 000 300 000 300 000 300 000
Intake gate 290 000 310 000 340 000 360 000
Intake stoplog guides 70 000 70 000 70 000 70 000
Penstock 2 550 000 3 000 000 3 350 000 3 900 000
Emergency valve 520 000 640 000 810 000 930 000
Draft tube gates 80 000 110 000 90 000 120 000
Total cost 4 720 000 5 350 000 5 900 000 6 630 000
Grid Connection
Transmission line 132kV 4 650 000 4 650 000 4 650 000 4 650 000
Transmission line PH-Dam, 50 000 50 000 50 000 50 000

11kV
Electrification of nearby 1 320 000 1 320 000 1 320 000 1 320 000
villages
Total cost 6 020 000 6 020 000 6 020 000 6 020 000
Total cost for el-mech, 27 640 000 30 050 000 32 400 000 34 590 000
hydraulic steelworks and grid
connection
Physical unforeseen el- 2 764 000 3 005 000 3 240 000 3 459 000
mech. 10%
Total cost for el-mech. 30 404 000 33 055 000 35 640 000 38 049 000
Subtotal 63 628 576 68 968 907 73 434 226 77 712 459

Contract Administration and
Engineering, 8% 5 090 286 5 517 513 5 874 738 6 216 997
Project Development and
Administration, 5% 3 181 429 3 448 445 3 671 711 3 885 623
Environmental mitigation
costs, 1% 636 286 689 689 734 342 777 125
Project cost 72 536 576 78 624 554 83 715 018 88 592 204
Evaluation of Optimum Installed Capacity
The optimum discharge is found by calculating the Net Present Value (NPV), Levelized energy costs,
Cost/Benefit ratio and Internal Rate of Return. Assumptions used in the calculation are:
Energy value [USc/kWh] : 7.00

Discount rate [%] : 10
O&M Cost [%] : 1.5
Construction cost distribution schedule: 1st yr : 25%

2nd yr : 45%
3rd yr : 30%
The financial parameters have been estimated by a simplified financial model. The figures deviate
thus slighthly from the figures presented in chapter 8, but the small differences has no impact on the
conclusions drawn in this chapter. The preliminary figures are presented in the table below.
Table 7-6: Financial Parameters for Alternatives Used in the Optimization

Description Unit Alternatives
1.4 Qm 1.7 Qm 2.0 Qm 2.3 Qm
PV Costs mill. USD 74 81 86 91

PV Benefits mill. USD 76 83 90 96
NPV mill. USD 1.5 2.9 4.5 5.0
B/C Ratio 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.06
Levelized unit cost USc/kWh 6.86 6.75 6.65 6.63
IRR 10.24 % 10.44 % 10.64 % 10.67 %
As shown in the table above, the alternatives 2.0 Qm and 2.3 Qm are found to give the best financial
parameter values, and are very similar. Specifially for IRR, alternative 2.3 Qm yileds a slightly higher
value than alternative 2.0 Qm, but the investment cost is higher. Below the curve for IRR is shown.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

10.70%
10.65%
10.60%
10.55%
10.50%
IRR
10.45%
10.40%
10.35%
10.30%
10.25%
10.20%
1.1 1.4 1.7 2 2.3 2.6
Qm
Figure 7-2: Internal Rate of Return for the Alternatives used in Optimization
As can be concluded from the table an installed capacity corresponding to about 2.0 Qm is considered
as the optimum installed capacity. This ratio have been used for all other alternatives.
Table 7-7: Optimization Results

Description Total Volume Total Energy Energy Transmis- Energy
turbine of water installed equivalent production sion line production
discharge capacity losses
m3/s m3 MW kWh/m3 GWh/yr 2% GWh/yr

1-Step Dev. 23.52 281.30 105 1.24 348,4 7.0 341.5
Upper 23.52 281.30 74 0.87 245,6 4.9 240.7
Lower 37.76 444.39 51 0.38 168,9 3.4 165.5
Upper 23.52 281.30 54 0.64 179,2 3.6 175.6
Middle 33.44 392.10 28 0.24 92,5 1.9 90.7
Lower 37.76 444.39 51 0.38 168,9 3.4 165.5
This alternative includes three power plants in a cascade utilizing the 530 m high drop in the river
between el. 570 m a.s.l. and el.40 m a.s.l..
3-Step Lower Power Plant Cost Estimate for Optimized Installed Capacity
The preliminary optimisation concludes that the most economic installed capacity is 51 MW,
corresponding to 37.76 m3/s turbine flow. Cost estimate for the selected installed capacity is shown in
Sub-section 7.4.3..
3-Step Middle Power Plant Cost Estimate
The middle power plant is utilizing the drop between el. 300 m a.s.l. and el. 200 m a.s.l. in the
Bawgata River and has an optimum installed capacity of 28 MW corresponding to 33.44 m3/s turbine
flow. The estimated construction costs for this plant are shown in table below.
Table 7-8: Cost Estimate. 3-step, Middle Project
Description Cost (USD)
Civil Works
Access, construction roads and operators' village 3 245 000
Dam and intake 3 605 228
Headrace tunnel 11 908 632
Penstock 800 986

Portal and sand excluder system 490 000
Powerhouse 1 645 160
Cost Civil Works 21 695 005

Contractor P&G, 20% 4 339 001
Physical unforeseen civil work, 15% 3 254 251
Total cost 29 288 257
Turbines 4 180 000
Generators 3 740 000
Transformer 1 000 000
AC and DC supply 1 750 000
Outdoor conventional switchgear 1 500 000
Control system 1 100 000
Cooling water systems 350 000
Firewater system 500 000
Drainage system 300 000
Dewatering system 300 000
Powerhouse crane 220 000
Flood flushing gates 350 000
Stoplogs flood flushing gates 150 000
Environmental flow gate 100 000
Intake trashrack 120 000
Intake trashrack cleaner 300 000
Intake gate 260 000
Intake stoplog guides 50 000
Penstock 2 000 000
Emergency valve 660 000
Draft tube gates 190 000
Grid Connection
Transmission line 132kV 5 175 000
Transmission line PH-Dam, 11kV 100 000

Electrification of nearby villages 710 000
Total cost for el-mech, hydraulic steelwork and 25 105 000

grid connection
Physical unforseen el-mech. 10% 2 510 500
Total cost for equipment & grid connection 27 615 500
Total Construction Costs 56 903 757

Contract Administration and Engineering, 8% 4 552 301
Project Development and Administration, 5% 2 845 188
Environmental mitigation cost, 1% 569 038
Project Cost 64 870 283
3-Step Upper Power Plant Cost Estimate
The upper power plant is utilizing the drop between el. 570 m a.s.l. and el. 300 m a.s.l. in the Bawgata
River and has an optimum installed capacity of 54 MW corresponding to 23.52 m3/s total turbine flow.
The estimated construction costs for this plant are shown in table below.
Table 7-9: Cost Estimate. 3-step, Upper Project
Civil Works
Access, construction roads and operators' 2 675 000
village
Penstock 1 792 286
Portal and sand excluder system 490 000
Physical unforeseen civil works, 15% 5 240 844
Turbines 5 600 000

Stoplogs flood flushing gates 200 000
Intake gate 300 000
Penstock 760 000
Grid Connection
Electrification of nearby villages 1 380 000
Total cost for el-mech, hydraulic steelwork and 29 580 000

grid connection
Physical unforeseen el-mech. 10% 2 958 000
Total Construction Costs 79 705 594


Environmental mitigation cost, 1% 797 056
Project cost 90 864 377
Construction and Implementation of the 3-Step Development
The 3-step power plants are of similar layouts with relatively low dams, short headrace tunnel,
penstock in the open and surface powerhouses.
The 3-step lower plant is proposed with access road from Bawgata Auk passing along the left bank of
the Bawgata River. This access road has the advantage of passing through a relatively flat area and
no bridge crossing is needed over the Bawgata River. Total length from Bawgata Auk to the
powerhouse is about 16 km. About 2-3 km downstream of the powerhouse the access road to the the
headrace tunnel and dam and intake is branching off. This road has to be cut in hilly terrain and is
assessed to be about 8 km long.
Total construction time for the 3-step lower plant is estimated to 36 months, which is sufficient for
construction of the 35 m high concrete/RCC gravity dam and the headrace tunnel. The tunnel is
assumed excavated from both ends. The critical path to the project completion is assumed to be the
ordering, fabrication, transport, erection and commissioning of the electro-mechanical equipment.
The 3-step middle plant as well is proposed with an access road from Bawgata Auk passing along the
left bank of the Bawgata river. This road as well has the advantage of passing through relatively flat
area and no crossing is necessary over the Bawgata River. Total length from Bawgata Auk to the
powerhouse is about 24 km. The road will follow the same alignment as for the lower power plant. The
upper part of the road over a distance of about 11 km has to be cut in hilly terrain.
Total construction time for the 3-step middle plant is estimated to 36 months, which is sufficient for
construction of the 15 m high concrete gravity dam and the headrace tunnel. The tunnel is assumed
excavated from both ends. Also for the middle plant the critical path is assumed to be the ordering,
fabrication, transport, erection and commissioning of the electro-mechanical equipment.
The 3-step upper plant is proposed with an access road from the main road between Kyauukki and
Mu Thea village, branching off the main road about 5 km before entering Mu Thea village. The access
road is leading to the dam, to the construction adit of the headrace tunnel and to the powerhouse. The
total lengthof this road is estimated at 15 km, of this 13 km is in hilly terrain. The main road from
Kyauukki to Mu Thea village has to be upgraded and several bridges have to be constructed for
upgrading the road to an all weather standard. The cost estimate does not include any cost for
upgrading of this road.
Total construction time is estimated to 36 months which is sufficient for construction of the 35 m high
concrete/RCC gravity dam and the headrace tunnel. The tunnel is assumed excavated from both
ends. Also for the upper plant the critical path is assumed to be the ordering, fabrication, transport,
erection and commissioning of the electro-mechanical equipment.
This alternative includes two power plants in a cascade utilizing the 530m drop in the river between el.
570 m a.s.l. and 40 m a.s.l..
The lower power plant is utilizing the drop between el. 200 m a.s.l. and el. 40 m a.s.l. in the river and is
identical to the 3-step lower power plant
The upper power plant is utilizing the drop between el. 570 m a.s.l. and el. 200 m a.s.l. in the river.
2-Step Lower PP Cost Estimate
Preliminary optimization concludes that the most economic total installed capacity is 51 MW,
corresponding to 37.76 m3/s of total turbine flow as outlined in chapter 7.4.4. As the 2-step lower plant
is similar to the 3-step lower plant, the construction cost estimate will be similar as outlined in Sub-
section 7.4.3 for installed capacity corresponding to 2.0 × Qm.
2-Step Upper Power Plant Cost Estimate
Preliminary optimization concludes that the most economic total installed capacity for the 2-step upper
plant is 74 MW, corresponding to 23.52 m3/s total turbine flow as outlined in Sub-section 7.4.4. The
estimated construction cost for this plant is shown in the table below.
Table 7-10: Cost Estimate. 2-step, Upper Project
Civil Works
Penstock 2 858 041
Portal, sand excluder system and rock trap 670 000
Turbines 6 500 000

Stoplogs for flood flushing gates 200 000
Intake gate 300 000
Adit gate 100 000
Penstock 19 900 000
Grid Connection
Total cost for el-mech, hydraulic steelworks and 50 160 000

grid connection
Physical unforeseen 10% 5 016 000
Subtotal 136 572 642

Environmental mitigation cost, 1% 1 365 726
Construction and Implementation of the 2-Step Development
Both power plants have a concrete/RCC gravity dam of 35 m, headrace tunnel, penstock in the open
and powerhouse at surface. The main difference between the two plants is the length of the headrace
tunnels and penstocks. The headrace tunnel of the lower plant is 1850 m long and for the upper power
plant 9500m long. The penstocks are 360 m long and 1750 m long, respectively.
The 2-step lower power plant is identical with the 3-step lower power plant. The plant has its access
road from Bawgata Auk passing along the left bank of the Bawgata river. The estimated construction
time is 36 months.
The 2-step upper plant is proposed with an access road from the main road between Kyauukki and Mu
The village, branching off the main road about 5 km before entering Mu Thea village. The access road
is leading to the dam, the headrace tunnel and the powerhouse. The total length of this road is
estimated at 21 km with 15 km in hilly terrain. The road from Kyauukki to Mu Thea village needs
upgrading and several bridges have to be constructed to establish an all weather standard road. The
cost estimate does not include cost for this upgrading.
Total construction time for the 2-step upper plant is estimated to 48 months which is sufficient for
constructing the 35 m high concrete/RCC gravity dam and the headrace tunnel. The tunnel is
assumed excavated from both ends and from one intermediate construction adit. The critical path is
assumed to be the excavation of the headrace tunnel.
1-Step Development
This alternative is utilizing the total drop of the Bawgata River between el. 570 m a.s.l. and el.45 m
a.s.l. in one underground power plant. The dam is identical to the upper dam for the 3-step and 2-step
cascade developments.
1-Step Power Plant Cost Estimate
Preliminary optimization concludes that the most economic total installed capacity is 105 MW,
corresponding to 23.52 m3/s turbine flow as outlined in Sub-section 7.4.4. The estimated construction
cost for this scheme is shown in table below.
Table 7-11: Cost Estimate. 1-step Development
Civil Works
Shaft 3 312 716
Portal, sand excluder system and rock trap 730 000
Powerhouse cavern 5 445 000
Turbines 11 000 000
Cooling water systems 1 300 000
Dewatering system 1 100 000
Workshop tools and equipment 150 000
Stoplogs for flood flushing gates 200 000
Intake gate 380 000
Adit gate 100 000
Penstock 4 100 000
Grid Connection
Total cost for el-mech, hydraulic steelworks and 47 820 000

grid connection
Physical unforeseen 10% 4 782 000

Subtotal 172 852 142
Environmental mitigation cost, 1% 1 728 521
Construction and Implementation Schedule for the 1-Step Development
The power plant has a 35m high concrete/RCC gravity dam, headrace tunnel, vertical steel-lined shaft
and powerhouse underground. The headrace tunnel is 10600 m long.. A 435m high vertical shaft
connects the headrace tunnel to the powerhouse. The 1100 m long construction adit to the
downstream end of the headrace tunnel is serving as surge tunnel as well.
Access to the power plant is proposed to branch off from the main road between Kyauukki and
Bawgata Auk. The distance from the branch-off to the main project area is about 6 km. This is a low
standard road and cost for upgrading is included in the cost estimate. An existing road leads from the
powerhouse area towards the construction adits to the headrace tunnel. This road is at present of
reasonably good quality and can be used as part of the permanent road to the headrace tunnel adits
and dam area. In total about 20 km of new road has to be built of this about 14 km is in hilly terrain.
Total construction time is estimated to 48 months that is sufficient for construction of the 35 m high
concrete/RCC gravity dam and the headrace tunnel. The tunnel is assumed to be excavated from both
ends and from an intermediate construction adit. The critical path for overall project completion is
assumed to be excavation of the headrace tunnel.
Preliminary Economic and Financial Analysis
General
Two types of analysis are made: (1) Economic unit cost calculation from the perspective of the country
(or public utility) and (2) Financial analysis from a private investor's perspective. A market analysis has
not been part of this study, and therefore the need for the project in the Myanmar power market has
not been evaluated.
Economic Analysis
Approach to Unit Cost Calculation
The calculations target the unit cost of energy on the basis of the cost estimates and a certain
discount rate. The analysis rests on a plant connected to the grid via the nearest connecting point.
The levelised unit cost of energy is defined as the ratio of the cost of energy, based on the present
value (PV) of total investment and O&M costs, on the one hand, to output, on the other. All figures are
estimated over the lifetime of the proposed scheme. Output is represented by the mean annual
generation, from which 2% transmission losses already have been deducted in the production
estimates. Applying the assumed discount rate, the unit cost expresses the minimum average tariff for
the entire output supplied at the grid connection points.
All calculations are expressed in real terms, i.e. at mid-2016 price level, without adjustment for future
inflation.
Cost Summary
Total capital expenditure expressed at mid-2016 price level for the seven different alternatives is
shown in Error! Reference source not found. below. The figures exclude any import duties, taxes
and interest during construction (IDC). The distribution over the construction period is also presented
below.
Table 8-1: Economic Investment Cost

2 Step 3 Step
Project cost (MUSD) 1 step 2 step 3 step Lower Upper 2 Lower Middle Upper 3
Civil works 120.3 119.2 114.3 37.8 81.4 37.8 29.3 47.2
Electromechanical and Electrical Equipment Works 45.2 80.9 80.0 30.9 49.9 30.9 22.3 26.8
Grid Connection 7.5 10.0 15.8 4.7 5.3 4.7 5.3 5.8
Environmental and Social costs 1.7 2.1 2.1 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.8
Contract Administration and Engineering, 8% 13.8 16.5 16.5 5.8 10.7 5.8 4.5 6.3
Project Development and Administration, 5% 8.6 10.3 10.3 3.6 6.7 3.6 2.8 3.9
Total Project cost (MUSD) before inflation and
financing 197.1 238.9 239.0 83.5 155.4 83.5 64.8 90.7
The cost estimate includes the cost of transmission line to connect to the national grid.
We assume that costs incur evenly over the construction period as shown in Table 8-2 below:
Table 8-2: Economic Investment Cost per Year
Alternative MW Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total USD/kW

1 step 105 51 51 51 51 0 205 1 952
2 step total 125 62 62 62 62 0 249 1 989
3 step total 133 83 83 83 0 0 249 1 869
2 step
Lower 51 29 29 29 0 0 87 1 704
Upper 2 step 74 40 40 40 40 0 162 2 185
Lower 51 29 29 29 0 0 87 1 704
3 step
Middle 28 22 22 22 0 0 67 2 407
Upper 3 step 54 31 31 31 0 0 94 1 747
Operation and maintenance costs are on average taken to be 1.5% p.a. of the capital expenditure
estimates, based on a percentage estimated civil works and hydro-mechanical and electro-technical
works. The percentages are estimated so as to take into account the intermittent need for replacement
of certain capital expenditure items, in particular those related to electro-technical and to some degree
the hydro-mechanical works.
Other Main Assumptions
The main assumptions and parameters are outlined below.
Table 8-3: Main Assumptions and Parameters

2 Step 3 Step
1 step 2 step 3 step Lower Upper 2 Lower Middle Upper 3
Construction time Months 48 48 36 36 48 36 36 36
Installed capacity (MW) 105 125 133 51 74 51 28 54
Total energy (GWh per year) 342 406 432 166 241 166 91 176
Plant load factor 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 %
• Construction time: The one step alternative, as well as the upper step of the 2-step alternative
have an estimated construction period of 4 years. For all the plants in the 3-step development
there is little tunnelling. The estimated construction period for all three plants is 3 years.
• Output: Mean annual generation. Full output is assumed from the first year of operation, and
for the unit cost calculation the mean annual output is applied. These numbers are net of plant
energy consumption. and net of an estimated transmission loss of 2%.
• Transmission costs: We have not included any transmission costs (wheeling charges etc.),
but rather assumed that the tariffs are for delivery at the grid connection point.
• Discount rate: 10% (opportunity cost of capital), as recommended by the World Bank
• Evaluation period: Construction period followed by a 50 years operating period.
• Energy Tariff: The main alternative to hydropower in Myanmar is gas generated power, and
we have based the economic energy tariff on the cost of operating a combined cycle gas turbine
(CCGT) plant in Myanmar with a gas price of 6 USD/MMBtu. This results in an estimated tariff
of 7.00 USc/kWh.
Results
The main results of the economic evaluation are summarized in the table below:
Table 8-4: Economic Evaluation Results

2 Step 3 Step
Economic results 1 step 2 step 3 step Lower Upper 2 Lower Middle Upper 3
Economic IRR 8.7 % 8.5 % 9.5 % 10.5 % 7.7 % 10.5 % 7.1 % 10.2 %
Economic NPV (MUSD) -25 -35 -12 4 -35 4 -18 2
Unit cost (USc/kWh) 7.99 8.15 7.34 6.70 8.94 6.70 9.45 6.85
At the assumed 10% discount rate, The 3 step development seems to be the most advantageous from
an economic perspective, yielding the highest economic IRRs and the lowest unit energy cost
(levelised economic tariff). The unit energy cost supplied at the grid connection point is 6.70 USc/kWh
for the lower plant and 6.85 for the upper 3 step project. The investment cost is USD 1 704 per kW
installed capacity for the lower alternative and USD 1 747 per kW installed capacity for the upper 3
step project. At the assumed average tariff of 7.00 USc/kWh the total 3 step project yields an
economic internal rate of return of 9.5%, the lower yields 10.5% and the upper project yields 10.2%,
compared to the discount rate of 10%. As a result, the project NPV is USD 4 million for the lower and
USD 2 million for the upper. Because the middle alternative under the 3 step development has a
negative NPV of USD 18 million, the total NPV for the 3 stage alternative is USD -12 million. None of
the other alternatives yield positive NPVs. The only benefit included in this economic analysis is the
generated power estimated at the expected financial tariff of 7.00 USc/kWh. The project will have
more positive benefits that have not been quantified in this report, such as carbon emission
reductions, electrification of new areas, bringing more stability to the grid and reducing the probability
of load shedding. Including such benefits would increase the economic IRR. With the base case
assumptions we consider the project as economically viable, but the viability is marginal and may be
impacted by changes in the most central assumptions like construction cost, hydrology and electricity
tariff. Further hydrology investigations are recommended before a conclusion on the economic viability
may be concluded.
Sensitivities
In order to assess the viability of the project, we have performed sensitivity analyses for the two best
alternatives, the three step lower and upper projects:
Table 8-5: Sensitivities analysis results

Lower Upper 3 Step
Ec. NPV Economic Ec. NPV Economic
Economic Sensitivities - Construction Cost EIRR (MUSD) Unit cost EIRR (MUSD) Unit cost
Construction cost -30 % 14.9 % 31 4.71 14.6 % 31 4.82
Base Case 10.5 % 4 6.70 10.2 % 2 6.85
Construction cost 10 % 9.5 % -5 7.36 9.2 % -8 7.53
Lower Upper 3 Step

Ec. NPV Ec. NPV
Economic Sensitivities - Tariff EIRR (MUSD) EIRR (MUSD)
Tariff -30 % 7.0 % -24 6.8 % -28
Tariff -20 % 8.2 % -15 8.0 % -18
Tariff -10 % 9.4 % -5 9.1 % -8
Base Case 10.5 % 4 10.2 % 2
Tariff 10 % 11.6 % 13 11.3 % 12
Tariff 20 % 12.6 % 23 12.3 % 22
Tariff 30 % 13.6 % 32 13.3 % 32
According to the sensitivity analysis, the construction cost can increase by about 5% for the lower
alternative before the project EIRR reaches 10% at an average tariff of 7.00 USc/kWh, while the upper
project only tolerates a 2% increase. The tariff may drop by about 4% before the Economic IRR drops
below the hurdle rate of 10% for the lower project, and about 2% for the upper project. Considering
that the analysis excludes other benefits than the opportunity cost of power, and that the projects
tolerate about 2-5 % change in construction cost and 2-4% reduction in tariff, we conclude that the
lower and upper projects of the 3 step development seem to be economically viable, but with a small
margin.
Financial Analysis
It is assumed that a private investor will obtain a license (concession) for a limited period of time to
build and operate the hydropower plants, thereafter the plants will be handed over to the utility (or
government) at no cost.
One of the main consequences of private sector involvement relates to the type of financing and its
terms. A private investor will have a return on equity (ROE) requirement that exceeds that of a public
institution as owner, and the debt financing terms will reflect those of the commercial markets.
Concessionary financing is not a likely element under the private investor concept.
The financial analysis is evaluated using the assumptions given below. The purpose is to obtain a unit
energy cost or tariff that will satisfy a private investor's requirement of a return on equity (ROE) at
12%. For performing the calculations, several additional parameters are included. While economic
analysis is performed in real terms, the financial analysis is calculated on nominal terms, meaning that
we include inflationary adjustment in the model.
Approach to Unit Cost Calculation:
The calculations target the unit cost of energy on the basis of the cost estimate and a certain discount
rate. The analysis rests on plant connection to the National Grid at the nearest grid connecting point.
The levelised unit cost of energy is defined as the ratio of the cost of energy, based on the present
value (PV) of total investment and O&M costs, on the one hand, to output, on the other. All figures are
estimated over the lifetime of the proposed scheme. Output is represented by the mean annual
generation, from which transmission losses have been deducted. Applying the assumed discount
rate, the unit cost expresses the minimum average tariff for the entire output supplied at the grid
connection points.
The main assumptions are outlined below:
Assumptions
All costs and revenues are expressed in mid-2016 figures, and are subject to inflationary adjustment.
Construction cost:
The financial analysis has been performed for all alternatives
The total investment for the chosen alternative, including financing costs, interest during construction
(IDC) and inflationary adjustments of the investment cost during the construction period is shownTable
8-6 below:
Table 8-6 Total Financial Project Cost

2 Step 3 Step
Project cost (MUSD) 1 step 2 step 3 step Lower Upper 2 Lower Middle Upper 3
Civil works 120.3 119.2 114.3 37.8 81.4 37.8 29.3 47.2
Electromechanical and Electrical Equipment Works 45.2 80.9 80.0 30.9 49.9 30.9 22.3 26.8
Grid Connection 7.5 10.0 15.8 4.7 5.3 4.7 5.3 5.8
Environmental and Social costs 1.7 2.1 2.1 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.8
Contract Administration and Engineering, 8% 13.8 16.5 16.5 5.8 10.7 5.8 4.5 6.3
Project Development and Administration, 5% 8.6 10.3 10.3 3.6 6.7 3.6 2.8 3.9
Total Project cost (MUSD) before inflation and
financing 197.1 238.9 239.0 83.5 155.4 83.5 64.8 90.7
Financing fees, IDC and inflation 37.2 45.1 35.2 12.3 29.3 12.3 9.5 13.4
Total project cost (MUSD) 234.2 284.0 274.2 95.8 184.7 95.8 74.3 104.0
The investment cost distribution over the construction period for the alternatives is presented in Table
8-7Error! Reference source not found. below.
Table 8-7 Investment Cost per Year

Financial investment incl IDC (MUSD)
Alternative MW Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total USD/kW
1 step 105 55 56 60 64 0 234 2 231
2 step total 125 67 67 72 78 0 284 2 272
3 step total 133 88 90 96 0 0 274 2 061
2 step
Lower 51 31 31 34 0 0 96 1 879
Upper 2 step 74 43 44 47 50 0 185 2 496
Lower 51 31 31 34 0 0 96 1 879
3 step
Middle 28 24 24 26 0 0 74 2 654
Upper 3 step 54 33 34 37 0 0 104 1 926
The cost estimate includes the cost of transmission to connect to the national grid. The investment
cost is USD 1 879 per kW installed capacity including IDC and inflation for the lower plant and USD
1 926 for the 3-step upper plant.
We assume that the Project is financed with 30% equity and 70% debt, and the assumed conditions
for the debt are illustrated in Table 8-8 below:
Table 8-8 Debt Structure and Conditions

% of Spread pre Interest Repayment Moratorium
Debt Structure debt COD rate Period (post COD) Total Tenure
Commercial Debt 100 % 5.0 % 7.5 % 15 1 19
Operating costs
Operation and maintenance costs are on average taken to be 1.5% p.a. of the capital expenditure
estimates, based on a lower percentage for civil works and higher figures for hydro-mechanical and
electro-technical works. The percentages are estimated so as to take into account the intermittent
need for replacement of certain capital expenditure items in particular those related to electro-
technical and to some degree the hydro-mechanical works. In addition we have assumed an annual
insurance cost of 0.5% of the investment cost.
Annual generation
The estimated mean annual generation and load factors for the different alternatives are shown in
Error! Reference source not found. below. Full output is assumed from the first year of operation,
and for the unit cost calculation, the mean annual output is applied. These numbers are net of plant
energy consumption. and 2% transmission losses up to the grid connection substation.
Table 8-9 Key Features of the Alternatives

2 Step 3 Step
1 step 2 step 3 step Lower Upper 2 Lower Middle Upper 3
Construction time Months 48 48 36 36 48 36 36 36
Installed capacity (MW) 105 125 133 51 74 51 28 54
Total energy (GWh per year) 342 406 432 166 241 166 91 176
Plant load factor 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 %
Energy Tariff
Market studies are outside of the scope for our study, and the Client is supposed to give the tariff
assumptions to be used for optimization, economic and financial analyses. The main alternative to
hydropower in Myanmar is Gas power, and we have based the economic energy tariff on the cost of
operating a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant in Myanmar with a gas price of 6 USD/MMBtu.
This results in an estimated tariff of 7.00 USc/kWh. This is the same tariff that was used in the
economic analysis.
Other assumptions
Transmission losses: Transmission and transformation losses are estimated at 2% and have
already been deducted in the total energy figures in Table 8-9 above.
Transmission costs: We have not included any transmission costs, but rather assumed that the
tariffs are for delivery at the grid connection point.
Discount rate or Required Return on Equity (ROE): 12%
Evaluation period: Construction period followed by a 30 year operating period.
Debt and Equity share: 70% debt finance and 30% equity finance
Loan repayment: 15 years repayment after 1 year grace period after construction period.
Loan interest rate: 7.5% p.a. (expressed in nominal terms)
Upfront financing fee: 1%
Annual inflation rate and tariff adjustment: 2%
CDM: We have not assumed any revenues from carbon certificates or the CDM (Clean Development
Mechanism).
Corporate tax rate: 24%. We have assumed that losses can be carried forward. We have not
assumed any tax holiday.
Royalties: Since the project is being developed by the state, we have not assumed any royalties, free
power or shares.
Both for tax and accounting purposes we have applied straight line depreciation over the 30 year
operation period.
Financial Results
The main results of the financial model are summarised below:

Table 8-10 Financial Results
2 Step 3 Step
Financial results 1 step 2 step 3 step Lower Upper 2 Lower Middle Upper 3 Hurdle
FIRR after tax 8.1 % 7.9 % 8.8 % 9.7 % 7.5 % 9.7 % 7.0 % 9.5 % 8.9 %
FIRR before tax 9.8 % 9.6 % 10.6 % 11.7 % 8.6 % 11.7 % 7.8 % 11.5 %
Equity IRR after tax 10.1 % 9.7 % 11.5 % 13.2 % 8.0 % 13.2 % 6.6 % 12.7 % 12.0 %
Project NPV before tax 21 19 48 28 -5 28 -7 27
Equity NPV after tax -15 -21 -5 4 -23 4 -13 3
The after tax Financial Internal Rate of Return to Equity (FIRREQ) is 13.2% for the lower alternative
and 12.7% for the 3-step upper alternative, which both are above the assumed required return of 12%.
The financial IRR to Firm (FIRR) after tax is 9.7% and 9.5%, respectively, which both are above the
calculated Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) of 8.9%, based on a long term debt/equity ratio
of 50%/50%. The Lower project yields a Net Present Value (NPV) to the equity investor of USD 4
million and USD 3 million for the 3-step upper project (expressed in 2016 value, which is the first year
of investment).
Financial Sensitivity Analysis
The robustness of the project is evaluated by calculating its sensitivities to changes in capital cost
estimates, tariff rates and interest rate. The results of the sensitivities are presented in the tables
below:
Table 8-11 Sensitivities – Construction Cost

Lower Upper 3 Step
Equity NPV Equity NPV
Financial Sensitivities - Construction Cost FIRR FIRREQ (MUSD) FIRR FIRREQ (MUSD)
Construction cost -30 % 13.8 % 22.0 % 23 13.5 % 21.4 % 23
Base Case 9.7 % 13.2 % 4 9.5 % 12.8 % 3
Construction cost 10 % 8.8 % 11.5 % -2 8.5 % 11.0 % -4
As can be seen from the table above, the project can tolerate a moderate cost increase of 6% for the
Lower project and a bit less than 4% for the 3-step upper project before the return to the investor
drops to the investor’s requirement of 12%.
Table 8-12 Sensitivities - Tariff

Lower Upper 3 Step
Equity NPV Equity NPV
Financial Sensitivities - Tariff FIRR FIRREQ (MUSD) FIRR FIRREQ (MUSD)
Tariff -30 % 6.9 % 6.5 % -18 6.7 % 6.1 % -20
Tariff -20 % 7.7 % 8.9 % -10 7.6 % 8.5 % -12
Tariff -10 % 8.7 % 11.2 % -3 8.4 % 10.8 % -4
Base Case 9.7 % 13.2 % 4 9.5 % 12.8 % 3
Tariff 10 % 10.7 % 15.2 % 10 10.5 % 14.7 % 9
Tariff 20 % 11.7 % 17.3 % 17 11.5 % 16.7 % 17
Tariff 30 % 12.6 % 19.4 % 24 12.4 % 18.8 % 24
The Lower project can tolerate a tariff reduction of 6% and the 3-step upper project a reduction of
about 4% before the Equity IRR drops to 12%.
Table 8-13 Sensitivities - Interest rate

Lower Upper 3 Step
Equity Equity
NPV NPV
Financial Sensitivities - Interest rate FIRREQ (MUSD) FIRREQ (MUSD)
Interest rate -2 % 14.7 % 8 14.2 % 7
Interest rate -1 % 13.9 % 6 13.4 % 5
Base Case 13.2 % 4 12.8 % 3
Interest rate 1 % 12.5 % 2 12.1 % 0
Interest rate 2 % 11.8 % -1 11.3 % -3
Interest rate 3 % 10.9 % -4 10.4 % -6
Interest rate 4 % 10.0 % -7 9.6 % -10
Interest rate 5 % 9.2 % -11 8.7 % -14
The table above shows that both alternatives can tolerate an increase in the interest rate of between
1-2% points before the equity return drops below the 12% hurdle rate.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, the project yields a financial return to the investor of 13.2% for the
Lower project and 12.8% for the 3-step upper project at the assumed tariff levels and construction
costs. These two projects seem financially viable, and they tolerate about 4-6% changes to the tariff or
construction cost before the equity return drops below the assumed hurdle rate of 12%. The other
projects do not seem economically or financially viable. The 1 step project has an estimated equity
return of 10.1%, which is below the hurdle rate, and notably lower than the two preferred alternatives.
The 1 step project also involves substantially larger construction risks since it involves much more
tunnelling, and since the investment cost is much higher, the financial risk is also substantially higher
than for the three step approach.
Although the project has been labelled 3 step alternative, it seems that the middle project is not
financially viable, with an equity return of only 6.6%. In reality, therefore, there is a chance that the 3
step alternative will be a two-step alternative involving only the Lower and Upper parts. The
assumptions are, however uncertain, and the Feasibility Study should focus on revisiting the PFS and
investigating the optimal solution for several projects in a cascade in the first place. Therafter it should
be finally decided which project to be carried forward to a full feasibility study.
Initial Financing Options
When financing a hydropower plant, there are several alternatives:
• Traditional public financing

• Ordinary recourse financing
• Limited recourse financing
• Non-recourse financing (Project finance) – requires a special purpose vehicle (SPV)
The projects may be owned by the government, by private investors or by a combination:
• Public
• Private/Public Partnership (PPP)
• Private
Bawgata is a project which is initiated by the KNU, and the KNU wants to be an owner, but has limited
funds available for investments. They also lack technical knowledge for overseeing the construction
and operation of the plant. It therefore seems clear that they will have to associate with either a private
investor or the the Government of Myanmar through MEPE. It is the opinion of the consultant that the
best option for KNU would be to associate with a private/international hydropower development
company which would be the main investor together with KNU. For projects with high financial returns
it would be realistic to require that the private investor pays for the KNU equity share, but Bawgata
does not yield much higher returns than what a private investor would require, and it may be difficult to
find a private investor who is willing to give free equity to KNU. KNU therefore would have to find other
sources of funding for their equity share, either from their own revenue stream, or possibly from
international donors.
Assuming that the project will be developed jointly by a private investor and KNU, it makes most sense
to organize the project in a special purpose vehicle (SPV) financed with non-recourse financing
(project financing). Since this SPV could be classified as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), both
multilateral banks (e.g. IFC), commercial banks and export credit agencies may be approached for
financing. We would also advise KNU to approach donors and possibly the World Bank to seek
support for financing KNU’s equity participation in the project. A well reputed international hydropower
developer will be better equipped to structure and finance the project than the KNU, and we would
therefore suggest that KNU starts a search for a co-investor and developer, possibly through a tender
process. The KNU should hire a transaction and financial advisor to help structure the project.
Conclusion and Summary of Alternatives

Investigated
The key figures for all alternatives are presented in the table below. The assumptions and background
for the figures have been elaborated in the the previous chapters.
Table 9-1: Key Figures for all Alternatives

Upper Lower Upper Middle Lower
Total installed
capacity MW 105 74 51 54 28 51
Energy
production GWh 341.5 240.7 165.5 175.6 90.7 165.5
Capital cost mill. USD 197.05 155.69 83.72 90.65 64.87 83.72
Construction
period years 4 4 3 3 3 3
Levelised unit
cost USc/kWh 9.18 10.26 7.64 7.82 10.78 7.64
Economic
NPV mill. USD -4 -21 15 14 -14 15
Economic IRR % 9.8% 8.6 % 11.7 % 11.5 % 7.8 % 11.7 %

Financial IRR
after tax % 8.1 % 7.5 % 9.7 % 9.5 % 7.0 % 9.7 %
Equity IRR
after tax % 10.1 % 8.0 % 13.2 % 12.7 % 6.6 % 13.2 %
For the case that both power plants in the 2-step cascade, or all three plants in the 3-step cascade,
are built at the same time, comparison between the main development options is presented in the
table below. In case of simultaneous construction of all power plants in a cascade, there will be some
minor savings related to construction of access roads and transmission lines. This has not been taken
into consideration in the figures presented. Construction time of 4 years has been used for the 2-step
cascade and 3 years for the 3-step cascade.
Table 9-2: Comparison between the main Development Options

Development Cascade Cascade
Development Development
Total installed capacity MW 105 125 133
Energy production GWh/yr 341.5 406.1 431.8
Construction cost mill. USD 197.1 239.4 239.2
Construction period years 4 4 3
Levelised unit cost USc/kWh 9.18 9.36 8.37

%
Economic IRR 9.8 % 9.6 % 10.6 %
%
Financial IRR after tax 8.1 % 7.9 % 8.8 %
%
Equity IRR after tax 10.1 % 9.7 % 11.5 %
Comparison of economic and financial parameters between 1-step, 2-step cascade and 3-step
cascade developments assuming that all plants forming a cascade are built at the same time, shows
that the 3-step cascade development is the preferred alternative.
Comparison between the alternative hydropower projects studied as stand alone projects shows that
the lower project has the best financial and economic parameters. The lower project is identical for
both the 3-step and the 2-step cascade development.
The next ranked projects are the Upper plant in the 3-step cascade development and the 1-step
development.
The middle project in the 3-step cascade development has the weakest financial and economic
performance of the investigated options. The 2-step upper plant is also unfeasible with the
assumptions used. The low economic and financial performance of these two alternatives can be
explained by the relatively long headrace tunnels compared to the available head for these
alternatives.
The 1-step development is financially and economically less attractive than the 3-step cascade
development. It is observed that the 1-step development has approximately the same installed
capacity and mean annual production as the 3-step development without the middle power plant. Both
upper and lower power plants in the 3-step cascade development has higher IRR than the 1-step
development. Therefore, it is concluded that the 3-step cascade development is better than the 1-step
development even if the middle power plant is left out.
When comparing the financial performance, the 2-step cascade development is less attractive than
the 1-step development. It is obvious that the lower power plant, which is identical for the two cascade
developments, has the best financial performance of all plants studied.
In conclusion, it is recommended to study the 3-step cascade development further as an initial part of
the Feasibility Study to confirm the number and lay-outs of the power plants forming the best cascade
development of Bawgata River.
In the next study stage, after confirming the conceptual layout of a cascade development, it is
recommended to carry out a full feasibility study of the most promising power plant alternatives in the
selected cascade development.
The lower power plant alternative appears to be the most attractive alternative from a topographical
point of view and will for the same reason most likely be identical for all cascade developments to be
considered. As this alternative also has the best financial performance of all alternatives studied, it is
assumed that this project is the best candidate project to be studied at the Feasibility Study level.
For illustration purpose, a tentative schedule for the 3-step lower project is shown below. As can be
seen from the diagram, the project will have to go through a planning and project development phase
before it can reach financial closure and construction can start. Realistically, it will take at least 6 years
from the start of the feasibility study until the project is in operation. The other projects in the 3-step
cascade can be done partly in parallel with the lower project or only after the lower project is
completed. This will to a large extent depend on the owner’s priorities and financial capacity.
Figure 9-1: 3-step lower project. Tentative development schedule
Environmental and Social Issues
Brief Summary of Findings and Recommendations
The Draft ESIA Scoping Study is presented in a separate report (Appendix 6). The following is a
summary of the findings and recommendations in the ESIA Scoping Study
For the main study, conflict and HPP Legacy of BHP’s Project Affected Area were most challenging to
ascertain given conflict dynamics, phase of peacebuilding processes, the vulnerability (Social
Baseline) context and lack of BHP Consultation Records. Furthermore, KNU’s conflict legacy and
different effects on people of Kyaukkyi and Shwegyin Township (and current political/stability
concerns) also complicated the picture.
It is perceived, by Project Affected People (PAPs) consulted, that BHP is a KNU project. Therefor the
perceptions and experiences of different PAPs affected in different ways by the insurgency and the
KNU, influence different perceptions of BHP from village to village, as much as a villages proximity to
Project Design activities. Other challenges relate to legacy of Hydropower Development in Myanmar
and, more specifically, to legacy of local (Shwegyin) HPP development’s negative impacts. In recent
years, there has been increased backlash against HPP, (specifically resettlement, land loss and
livelihood issues) by civil society organisations (CSOs) and some political parties, as HPP in the
country in the past did not consider community impacts or requirements. As BHP technical designers
have considered minimising resettlement risk/land and livelihood loss in BHP alternatives design, the
public consultation and disclosure (PCD) processes for Scoping Study’s Project Design disclosure,
mitigated many former concerns of BHP design. Nonetheless, due to conflict legacy, and as the
fieldwork was conducted when the ceasefire situation was considered under threat, concerns about
political instability remain high.
As social survey process to IFC Standards, is as important as the (data) outcomes it is essential to
assess process strengths, challenges and shortfalls, as well as lessons learned, to make suitable
recommendations for Feasibility SIA. The Scoping Study survey process comprised 3 parts:
i) Public Consultation and Disclosure;
ii) Preliminary Social Baseline and
iii) Social Impact Assessment.
The approach was to focus on:
• Capacity Building of BHP Company and Karen Local Consultants (necessary for facilitation of
social surveys);
• a broad overview of indirectly affected population; and
• an assessment of (and participation with) directly affected PAPs in communities, households
and individuals who live in close proximity to BHP Project Design Activities in Project Affected
Areas (PAA), that may be impacted during construction and operations.
PAPs were defined at village level and social survey included:
• 5 Community Meetings for Protocol and Awareness Raising (Disclosure);

• 10 Social Baseline Collection Consultations;
• 8 villages participated in Social Impact Consultations (as well as Key Informants in Kyaukkyi
Town).
As there was no Social Screening/Orientation Site Visit planning for Scoping Study was made on
basis of 2-3 directly affected PAP villages upstream (with possible 1-2 villages downstream). Thus, an
early achievement of the Scoping Study process was a more precise defining of indirect and direct
affected areas (impact zoning) as well as an understanding the of the political, economic and social
context of significantly more Project Affected People (PAPs) than originally planned for inclusion.
Despite increased survey size, schedule challenges, limited capacity, and PAPs concerns, confusions
and expectations, the Scoping Study successfully consulted over 160 PAPs representing communities
of over 22,000 In-directly Affected Households. Indirect impacts e.g. administrative and social service
pressures, that may be attributed to BHP, are low to moderate and easily reduced given mitigation
recommendations are considered.
Direct impacts are more complex to assess as the significance of which are as much attributable to
conflict legacy issues and current political context as to technical Project Design. Whilst the Scoping
Study findings indicate that impacts of technical Project Design affect a small geographical area and
few Households, impacts are complex and risk significance may thus be high. These therefore require
further detailed study which incorporates sensitive and socially inclusive participation during Feasibility
Study.
Table 10-1: Summary of Impact Issues Raised
Issue Usual HPP Social Risk and Impacts Impacts Applicable to BHP
Social and 1. Political and conflict legacy 1. High level instability=risks of unrest against BHP
Political 2. Current socio-political stability 2. Moderate-High Level Legacy risk of
Vulnerability of status/conflict risk conflict/clashes; social cohesion risks; most PAPs
Project Affected 3. Project risks on socio-political context and want BHP, a vocal minority (and outside agitators)
Area (PAA) vulnerable (post-conflict) social cohesion don’t
4. Post conflict/transitional Stability and 3. Potential to use BHP to continue conflict/ cause
Resettlement in consideration of HPP local violence or other disruptions of community
legacy cohesion
5. Post-conflict/transitional Socio-political 4. Short Term Economic Loss (STEL)-Compensation
impacts on economic situation/Ethnic misunderstandings risks
issues 5. Karen ethnics/IDPs high vulnerable to
physical/mental disability, poverty, education &
health & economic disadvantage, dependence on
unique natural resources
Indirect Impacts 1. Administration & other social service 1. Stressed Admin Offices cause BHP delays;
on pressures stressed hospitals risk BHP workers lives-
Administration, 2. Resettlement -moving communities or construction accidents
Economics, impacting livelihoods 2. Loss of income/economic displacement negatively
Education & 3. Disease profile – malaria, cholera, impacts health & risks BHP due to STEL issues
Health hepatitis A, typhoid, HIV/AIDS, 3. Workers from elsewhere may bring disease; TB,
tuberculosis, etc. HIV & malaria concerns
4. Education & Health systems and 4. Low Education & Health Baseline status; limited
infrastructure – poor or nonexistent education and health services could be strained
infrastructures already stressed by KNUs 5. Medium level concerns/risk of traffic accidents,
IDP relocations dust etc. and water quality
5. Community issues, such as water quality
or access, increased road traffic and
accidents
Direct Project 1. Physical area, number of communities 1. Small physical project footprint; initial perception
Footprint/Project and PAPs impacted by construction, was of large flooded area but ICs focussed PAPs
Design Impacts operation (considering adjacent on actual project area using maps, figures and
community’s experiences) verbal explanations (e.g. how long it takes to walk
2. Impacts on population size and profile to a place etc.)
(influx), such as in- or out-migration 2. Population growth is expected and seen as
potentially triggered by the project positive in 80% of PAPs consulted
3. Temporary impact on quality of life or 3. Temporary Disruption not regarded as high risk by
economic activity, such as dust, noise, PAPs
transportation corridors, temporary or 4. Workers welcomed given priority hire for locals;
permanent rerouting of roads and Fears Loss of Livelihood from NR, housing, health
rerouting or damming of river and food pressures.
4. Workforce size, and social services 5. High concerns on impacts on forest/animist
pressures cultural practises and livelihoods, hunting,
5. Impact on natural resources used by the foraging; low-med concerns of water supply for
communities drinking, livestock, washing, farming
6. Distortion of local prices, especially of 6. Conflict marginalisation means readjustments-
land, food, water and property price pressures due to post-conflict influx and IDP
7. Benefits expectations e.g. electricity relocations risk being attributed to/confused with
supply BHP impacts
7. High risk if expectations not managed with
consistent message on benefit sharing
The process of aligning the Project towards IFC Performance Standards in terms of public
consultation and disclosure was the first priority of the assignment. Obtaining an accurate social
baseline at a preliminary level and disclosing clear and accurate information about the project are
essential for managing the potential social risks associated with development and for planning future
more detailed studies including the compiling of appropriate management and mitigation measures.
However, the study also included and environmental scoping of the project that was achieved through:
• Analysing high resolution satellite imagery procured for the Project

• Collation of secondary data concerning the Project area
• Consulting academic specialists and local people
• Field reconnaissance in December 2016, focusing on the River valley including the upstream
and downstream of the proposed Project location
The field studies comprised water and soil sampling, seeking traces of large and small mammals as
well as reptiles and birds. Additionally, the aquatic ecology was surveyed, paying particular attention
to the local fishery; both fish capture and interviews with fishers were employed to obtain an initial
overview.
The environmental field team also carried out observations, transects and grid sampling to
characterise the land cover and flora of the Project area. During these studies significant disturbance
from ongoing deforestation for agriculture, logging and mining was noted.
While it is clear that the Project area contains a high biodiversity including some species on the IUCN
Red List; the limited footprint of the project in terrestrial terms would indicate that the environmental
risk of proceeding with development is low. From the aquatic perspective it is less clear and the
barrier effect of the Project would need to be further studied as well as establishing the presence or
absence of any highly endemic species. The full ESIA at Feasibility stage would need to include
further study of the terrestrial baseline and in particular the aquatic ecology of the River system.
Overall, a robust environmental management plan as well as a social management plan achieved
through appropriate consultation and participation would be prerequisites for future Project
Development
Initial SWOT, Risk and Sustainability Analysis
General
In this chapter, the Project is analysed from a strategic perspective. This will add to the understanding
of the project and supplement the findings in the economic and financial analyses.
The Initial SWOT-analysis, Risk Analysis and Sustainability Analysis are done based on a quick
assessment by Noronsult’s study team. Full-fledged analyses should involve gathering of specific
information, in-depth discussions with various stakeholders and facilitation by specialists on the
various analyses. Such full-fledged analyses should be conducted in the later planning stages of the
Project. Due to the similar nature of the analyses, several of the discussed items or issues will be the
same in all three analyses.
SWOT analysis
The SWOT analysis is a strategic planning tool for evaluating the Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats involved in developing the Project. It involves specifying the objectives and
identifying the internal and external factors that are favourable and unfavourable for achieving the
objectives.
Figure 11-1: SWOT-Analysis
In the analysis we have assumed that the main objective of Bawgata Hydropower Project is “To
develop the Project as a sustainable, commercially viable and environmentally and socially acceptable
project that is compatible with the on-going peace-building process between the KNU and the GoM.”
Strengths
Some identified Strengths (helpful factors of internal origin) of the Project are:
• There is a good potential available for hydropower development in the Bawgata River
• The Project is located at a reasonable distance from the national grid where power can
potentially be sold.
• The Project can be developed in a way that has comparatively less adverse environmental
impacts that other project oppurtunities in the area
• The Project will not inundate any settlements or have similar adverse social impacts
• By developing the Project in an environmentally and socially sustainable manner with the aim
to benefit people in the area, the Bawgata Project could be a model for sustainable
hydropower development in Myanmar, and hence, be a priority project.
• The current Project modality has support from both KNU and Union Government (through
MoU with MOEE MoU).
Weaknesses
Some identified Weaknesses (harmful factors of internal origin) of the Project are:
• Bawgata HPP is remotely located with poor infrastructure conditions such as difficult access
and no electric power supply or lodging facilities.
• Hydrological data as rainfall and run-off coefficient are uncertain as there are no direct
rainfall records or discharge measurements observations made within the Project's
catchment, and the discharge records from a neighbouring catchment seemingly have
serious errors.
• Construction costs are uncertain as quantities have been estimated based on maps in scale
1:50 000 only.
• The proposed project alternatives have no seasonal reservoirs, which means there will be
less power production in the dry season. Hence, the power could be less attractive for a
potential buyer.
• The developing modality of the project, with the involvement of an ethnic political
organisation (KNU), possibly commercial investors and possibly the Union Government, is
still unclear and will need a lot of planning and negotiations to materialize.
Opportunities
Some identified Opportunities (helpful factors of external origin) of the Project are:
• There is a potential market for the energy by selling power to the national grid
• Current economic growth in Myanmar and large areas of the country still to be electrified
mean that the energy demand will likely grow for many years to come.
• There is mining activity in the area. There are already some roads constructed for this activity,
and the expansion of the mining activities may mean that the road access will be further
improved.
• The development of a Bawgata hydropower project done appropriately can facilitate a broader
economic development in the area.
Threats
Some identified Threats (harmful factors of external origin) of the project are:
• The legacy of hydropower projects in Myanmar. There are several hydropower projects in
Myanmar that have been developed without proper attention to the environment or affected
communities, and this has led to an opposition against hydropower development from the
general public and the civil society. This opposition could also affect Bawgata HPP.
• The Bawgata Project is located in area affected by armed conflict. Currently there is a peace-
building process with dialogue between the parties. A set-back in this process could directly
affect the Bawgata area and a hydropower project
• Nationally, Myanmar is still in a political transition with a new government establishing its rule.
Any changes in the political scene at a national level could also affect Bawgata project.
• Currently, the Union Government through MOEE has expressed willingness to buy power from
independent power producers, but there is no firm policy in place and the buying rates is a
matter of negotiation. Hence, there is uncertainty as to the power off-take from the Project.
• The Bawgata Project is located in a seismically active area with the main Sagaing fault less
than 20 km away from the closest project site. A serious earthquake near the Project could
possibly cause serious damage to project structures or to the national power lines that the
Project needs for power evacuation.
Course Risk Assessment

We have conducted a course risk assessment identifying the main factors that can influence on the
Project. These factors should be further considered in the coming planning stages. The factors
identified in the table below will be relevant for all project alternatives
In the following some main risk factors have been listed and mitigation measures preliminarily
proposed.
Table 11-1: Main Risk Factors

Risk factors Details Consequences for Possible Mitigation
the project measures
Technical
Grid connection It is assumed that the Postponement Increased Verify delivery point of
project connects to the cost energy and conditions for
national grid in grid connection
Tharyargone Sub-station.
The sub-station needs to
be expanded to allow for
this. The cost sharing for
this sub-station expansion
is not clear.
Hydrological risk Hydrological estimates are Reduced production and Erect gauging stations
uncertain as the available less income. for collecting flow records
data are weak. Run-off for Higher floods and more in Bawgata River.
production and floods costly structures
could be wrongly estimated
Geological risk Geological parameters are Increased construction Thorough geological

poorer than assumed in the costs. Delays. mapping of the area
report
Seismicity There are fault lines fairly Damage to structures Proper seismic studies.
near the project area and a and/or transmission Strengthening of
real risk of heavy system structures
earthquakes
Political
Political –Local level A set-back in the peace- Postponement or even Work in close co-
building process can termination of the project operation with KNU and
directly affect the Bawgata Union Government.
Develop the project in a
area and a hydropower
manner that build trust
project among different parties.
Legacy of Resistance to the project Lack of approvals, Conduct a proper

hydropower in the from the public and civil Postponement, cost disclosure and
area and in Myanmar society because of other increase, reputational risk consultation process.
controversial projects in the Attend to grievances and
area mitigate/ compensate
appropriately.
Develop the project in a
manner that build trust
among different parties
Political central level Change in Laws and Postponement or even MoU with Union
regulations, political risk termination of the project government. Establish
and maintain political
contact with relevant
people
Financial
Market It is still not certain that Less income from power Initiate preliminary
MOEE will sign a PPA, and sales. discussion regarding
if so, at what conditions. Potentially termination of power sales.
the project
High inflation Myanmar is a country Cost increase Estimate inflation
facing a substantial realistically before
economic growth. In such making investment
situation it is not decisions.
Risk factors Details Consequences for Possible Mitigation

the project measures
uncommon to also get Include cap on price
higher inflation. escalation in contracts
Currency risk Some of the equipment for Cost increase Manage currency risks
the hydropower project properly in contracts.
needs to be imported from Introduce cap on
abroad. With the fragile currency adjustment in
political situation contracts.
unfavourable fluctuations in
currency level may occur.
Availability of capital To materialize the project, Postponement. Work out a realistic
the promotor of the project Potentially termination of financing plan early
is depending on attracting the Project
capital from other equity
investors and/or debt
financers. There is a risk
that the promotor is not
able to attract co-financers
acceptable to them.
Environmental and Social

Endangered species Endangered species Lack of approvals, Proper environmental
potentially threatened by postponement or even impact assessment and
the Project termination of the Project. environmental
Reputational risk management plan
Local opposition to The SIA scoping identifies Postponement, cost Conduct a proper
the Project from that some of the local increase, reputational risk disclosure and
affected or nearby communities are sceptical consultation process.
communities towards the hydropower Attend to grievances and
project. mitigate/ compensate
appropriately
Legacy of Resistance to the Project Lack of approvals, Develop and implement

hydropower in the from the public and civil Postponement, cost an information strategy.
area and in Myanmar society because of other increase, reputational risk Conduct a proper
controversial projects in the disclosure and
area consultation process.
Preliminary Analysis of Sustainability Aspects
We have conducted a preliminary assessment of sustainability aspects referring to the topics of the
Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol, Early Stage (IHA, 2010). However, this is not a
Sustainability Analysis as per IHA’s requirements as it does not comply with the required terms for an
official sustainability assessment. The results of this analysis therefore do not necessarily reflect the
quality required for an official sustainability assessment and may not be an accurate reflection of the
sustainability of the Project
Demonstrated Need
GoM has, supported by the World Bank, developed a Myanmar Electrification Plan aiming to electrify
100% of Myanmar’s households by 2030 (Castalia, 2014). To fulfil this plan, approximately 2,600 MW
additional generation capacity needs to be built within 2030. In addition growth is expected in
electricity consumption by the industrial sector and from already connected domestic customers.
MOEE estimates a total electricity generation capacity need in 2030 in the range of 9100-14500 MW,
up from 1874 MW in 2012 (Khaing, 2015). Although there are other projects under planning and
construction, the generation capacity from the Bawgata Project will be needed.
Locally in the Bawgata Area, in Bago Division and in Karen State there are at present large areas not
connected to an electric grid, so locally there is also a need. A hydropower project in Bawgata River
well implemented and managed could also bring revenue and development to the nearby
communities.
Hence, the need for the Project is well demonstrated.
Options Assessment
Different basin studies over the last 50 years have assessed the hydropower potential of Bawgata
River, and recommended it to be developed for hydropower. In previous studies (UNDP, 1964),
(NEWJEC, 1978) an option with a large reservoir in the upper reaches of the valley was proposed.
In this current study, different options for hydropower development on the Bawgata River have been
evaluated. A development scenario without a large reservoir and with less severe environmental and
social impacts is proposed. Different development options have been evaluated and compared. This
study focuses on hydropower development in Bawgata River alone, and has not assessed or
compared the Bawgata HPP with development opportunities in other rivers.
Policies & Plans
As mentioned in Sub-section 11.4.2, hydropower development on Bawgata River has been part of
various Power Development and Water Resources Studies, and a hydropower project has been
recurring as part of these plans. Previously, the GoM itself planned to conduct a Feasibility Study of
the Project, but it was halted due to the conflict in the area. Now the Project is being studied under
KNU’s initiative, but under a MoU with GoM. As per the Electricity Law of 2014, organisations can
engage in electricity production with a license from GoM. By-laws and technical standards are being
developed, but the full policy framework is not complete yet.
Political Risks
As described in Section 11.3, there is a significant political risk in Myanmar both on the central and at
the local level. The project currently being promoted by an ethnic political organisation (KNU) is
sensitive to political risks.
Institutional Capacity
The Bawgata Project is currently being promoted by KNU and its development company Thoolei Ltd.
Neither KNU nor Thoolei have experience from hydropower development. An informal capacity
assessment of the Thoolei staff conducted as part of this study, reveals that the current staff in
Thoolei, although having a range of different backgrounds and capabilities, none have any prior
background from hydropower or comparable infrastructure projects. Thoolei is in the favourable
situation of receiving technical assistance from the Norwegian Embassy through their peace building
initiative. Through this assistance, Thoolei has got access to consultancy services at international level
and is also receiving some technical transfer services. However, to be able to undertake the Bawgata
Project, Thoolei will have to strongly capacitate its organisation.
Technical Issues & Risks
As described in Section 11.3 there are some technical risks related to the Project. The most prominent
at present is the hydrological risk due to the uncertainties in the hydrological background data. The
geology seems comparatively good, but with a large part of the waterways in tunnels, the project costs
will be very sensitive to varying geological conditions. The identified technical risks are manageable
and can be partly mitigated through analyses during the successive planning stages.
Social Issues & Risks
As described in the Draft ESIA Scoping Report (Appendix 6) and in Section 11.3, the Project will not
inundate any settlements or large areas of agricultural land, and no other direct conflicts with inhabited
or social/culturally sensitive areas are expected. However, there is some scepticism to the Project
from the local people, partly due to the fear of adverse impacts, partly because of the standing of
authorities in the area, and partly because of the legacy of hydropower in Myanmar. With a proper
Social Impact Assessment, a proper plan for consultation and management of social issues and a due
attention and resources to grievances and compensation, it is expected that the social issues will be
manageable.
Environmental Issues & Risks
As described in the Draft ESIA Scoping Report (Appendix 6) and in Section 11.3, no severe adverse
environmental impacts of the Project are expected. However, there could be potential issues related to
wildlife and aquatic ecology. With a proper Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Plan
and due attention and resources allocated for mitigation, it is expected that the environmental issues
are manageable.
Economic & Financial Issues & Risks
As described in Section 11.3 there are some economic and financial risks related to the Project. The
most prominent at present is the uncertainty related to the of terms of the PPA and the availability of
capital for the Project. The promotor needs to put efforts into reducing these risk in the subsequent
planning stages.
Terms of Reference for a Feasibility Study
General
In line with the recommendation in Chapter 9, we have prepared a Terms of Reference (ToR) for a
Feasibility Study for the Lower Project in the 3-step-cascade.
In the ToR, we have assumed that KNU through Thoolei Company will be the promoter of the project.
It is envisaged that an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Study (ESIA) shall be carried out
in parallel with the technical study. The work of the technical/ economic feasibility study- and the ESIA
studies should be done in close interaction so that:
a) due consideration can be taken of environmental and social issues when selecting
technical solutions, and
b) technical solutions are communicated early enough to the ESIA team so that the required
investigations can be arranged.
The feasibility Study is envisaged to be divided into three phases as follows:
1. Inception Phase
2. Investigation Phase
3. Design and Analysis Phase
In the ToR it is assumed that the Consultant submits the following:
• An Inception Report for the study after 2 months of the commencement of work. Among
other, the Inception Report shall contain a detailed study program for the remainder of the
Feasibility Study.
• A Draft Feasibility Study Report to the Client within 12 months of commencement of the
study. However, the site investigations will have to be conducted during the dry season, and
the schedule will have to be adjusted accordingly to facilitate this.
• A Final Feasibility Study Report after 15 months of the commencement of work. The Final
Report should include the results of any comments received on the Draft Report from the
hearing process and the public hearing.
The full Draft ToR is annexed to the report (Appendix 2).
Objectives of the Feasibility Study
The Feasibility Study entails a comprehensive investigation program and an in-depth analysis with the
aim to bring the project to a bankable standard with the aim to carry the project forward to detailed
design and construction phase.
The Feasibility Study should demonstrate whether the Bawgata Lower Hydropower Project is
technically, economically, financially, environmentally and socially feasible and justifiable under the
anticipated conditions, and in particular compatible with the on-going peace-building process between
the KNU and the GoM. The Feasibility Study should also define the specific engineering and
implementation plan.
Other objectives of the Feasibility Study are:

• Provide detailed records and analyses of the topographical, hydrological and
geological/geotechnical conditions at the site.
• Provide a technical design of the project based on prevailing site conditions
• Provide detailed cost estimates
• Provide estimates of production, revenue and benefits
• Coordinate the technical study with the simultaneously conducted Environmental and Social
Impacts Assessment so that the project is being planned with due consideration to the
environmental and social aspects.
• Demonstrate the robustness of the project through risk and sensitivity analyses
• Provide a plan for design and implementation of the project
References
Castalia. (2014). Myanmar National Electrification Program. Roadmap and Investment Prospectus.
WB/SE4All.
Department of Geological Engineering. Faculty of Engineering. (1981). Report on Regional Geology of

Myanmar. Yangon.
Department of Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration. (2008). Geological Map of the Union of
Myanmar.
Earth Sciences Research Division. (1977). Geological Map of The Socialist Repubic of The Union of
Burma. Burma.
ESMAP. (2000). Best Practices for Sustainable Development of Micro Hydro Power in Developing
Countries.
IHA. (2010). Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol, Early Stage assessment Tool.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank and the International Energy
Agency. (2013). SE4All Global Tracking Framework. Washington DC.
Khaing, D. U. (2015). Status of Myanmar Electric Power and Hydropower Planning. Sustainable
Hydropower Development and Regional Cooperation. Nay Pyi Taw.
Myanmar Geosciences Society. (2014). Geological Map of Myanmar. Yangon, Myanmar.
NEWJEC. (1978). Burma Umbrella Project – Power Development Survey.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. (2015). Using the Q-system. Handbook. Oslo.
Thein, D., & Swe, U. L. (2006). Seismic Zone map of Myanmar.
UNDP. (1964). Sittaung Valley Water Resources Development.
Wang, Y., Sieh, K., Tun, S., & Lai, K. (2013). Active tectonics and Earthquake Potential of Myanmar
Region. AGU Publications.
Drawings
Drawing No. Title/ Description Date

A200 Location Map 2017-06-23
A201 Access and Construction Road. 2017-06-23

Overview
A202 Power Transmission System. 2017-06-23
Overview
A210 3-Step Cascade Development 2017-06-23
General Layout, Plan
Longitudinal Section
A212 3-Step Lower PP 2017-06-23
A213 3-Step Lower Dam 2017-06-23
Upstream View and Sections
A214 3-Step Lower Dam Intake 2017-06-23
Plan and Section
A215 Lower Power Plant 2017-06-23
Power Station
Plan and Sections
A216 3-Step Middle Dam and Intake 2017-06-23
A217 3-Step Upper Dam 2017-06-23
A218 3-Step Upper Dam Intake 2017-06-23
Plan and Section
A230 1-Step Development 2017-06-23
Underground Power Station
Plan and Sections
A240 Preliminary Structural Geology 2017-06-23
Appendix (Volume II)
1: Detailed Cost Estimates for All Alternatives

2: Terms of Reference for Bawgata Lower Hydropower Project Feasibility Study
3: Site Visit Report
4: Detailed Hydrology Report
5: Bawgata River - measurements Dec. 6th 2016 – May 15th 2017 (Memo by NVE)
6: Environmental and Social Scoping Report (separate Volume)

1 - Bawgata HPP - FINAL PFS Report - Vol 1 Final Report E02 - W K and B Summaries - 2017-09-19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Bawgata HPP - FINAL PFS Report - Vol 1 Final Report E02 - W K and B Summaries - 2017-09-19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NVE/ Thoolei Company Ltd

Bawgata Hydropower Project

Assignment no.: 5161926 Document no.: 09 Version: E02

Client: NVE/ Thoolei Company Ltd

Frontpage: Waterfall in Bawgata River (Photo: Paul Christen Røhr, NVE)

a. A one-step development option with one large hydropower plant

Description Unit Upper dam Middle dam Lower dam

Catchment area km2 145.6 207.0 233.7

Description Unit 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step

Maximum Turbine Flow (2 units) m3/s 37.76 33.44 23.52

Total Installed Capacity MW 51 28 54

Mean Annual Production GWh 165.5 90.7 175.6

Dam type Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC Concrete/RCC

• Highest Regulated Water Level masl 200 300 570

• Tunnel Cross section m2 26 22 22

• Tunnel Length m 1850 2800 4300

• Penstock above ground m 360 350 880

Powerhouse above ground

• Turbine type Francis Francis Francis

• Tailwater level masl 40 200 300

Capital cost mill. USD 83.7 64.9 90.9

Economic IRR % 10.5 7.1 10.2

Equity IRR % 13.2 6.6 12.7

Figure: The recommended 3-step development option

Executive Summary (S’gaw Karen Language)

ySR[h.ul.w>wz.M. cHuG>pDRuG>0J bDux.xH*H>o[D.w>wdmusJRtw>td.o;wz.'D; teD.up> '.0JvJR0Jql

xHwdmuDRtuydmuyRw>vD>w>usJRwz.t rlcd.uvHRoD.*DRw>td.o; 'D;xH*H>o[D.t*h>tusdR wz.

w>*h>w>usdR ,leH xHwdmuDRtzDcd.w>vD>w>u xHwdmuDRtcX.o;w>vD>w>u xHwdmuDRtzDvmw>vD>w>u

[D.'GJyDngySRul.ohul.b.wz. vJRuG>Ckoh.ng0J MqX.w>uJxD.o; 'D; ymzsgxD.0J [D.cd.

w>CkxXw>wdmusJRusdRusJtHRtylR 'fod;uCkxXw>rRvD>vXt-uX;tb.t*D> w>CkxH.oh.ngqd

'fymzsgwh>vXtzDcd.tod;pJ;*H>o[D.tzDcd.M. usdRusJt*Rwz.tw>vXmbl.vXmphRwz. ph>uD;

ud;eH.'J;*H>o[D.vXw>xk;xD.tDR< xHEkmvDRtywD>'D; yeduh.vXteJ.tw>qXuwD>t,HmM.

w>wdmusJRtHRb.w>yJmxHeDRz;tDRvX rk>usdR0JRuGm'D;usdmphw>td.o;t*D>vDRI w>yJmxHeDRz;wz.

w>ydmxGJvXtzDvmtylR w>wdmusJRtusdRtusJ(3)bd tw>xk;xD.*H>o[D.tywD>< w>vXmbl. vXmphR 'D;

w>ymzsg ,leH; w>rRtqDwqD w>rRtqDcHqD w>rRtqDoXqD

w>uJbsK;vXuhR'd;M>uhR % ၈.၇ ၈.၅ ၉.၅

usdRusJ(3)cgvXw>CkxXCmtylR usdRusJvXtd.'D;w>rRoXqD tw>wdmusJRw>rRvD>tzDvm tHR uhR'd;M>uhR

• xHtw>EkmvDR[;xD. txDuwX> masl ၂၀၀ ၃၀၀ ၅၇၀

• xHusdRtxD m ၁၈၅၀ ၂၈၀၀ ၄၃၀၀

• [D.cd.rJmzH;cd.tzDcd.xHusdR m ၃၆၀ ၃၅၀ ၈၈၀

•xHtr;vXvmcD masl ၄၀ ၂၀၀ ၃၀၀

w>wdmusJRutd.pH.td.usXRt*D> w>&hvdmb.xGJw>pH.pdRwJpdRwz.M. ub.w>cHuG>pDRuG> tgxD.vDRI

w>wdmusJRtvD>tusJtHRtd.'D;w>obH.bk.z;'d.vX rk>usdR0JRuGmwuyR*hR< xH*h>uD>*h>wuyR ph>uD;vDRI

u0HRxJwbsDM.b.I q.zduD>zdvXttd.vDRwJmoh.wz.ph>uD; uxH.M> w>b.uDb.cJz;'d.vDRI cDzsdvX

xHvDRqlw>vD>w>usJtw>vJRxD.vJRxDt*D> -uX;b.0J'D; w>rRtHRrh>usdRusJt*hRuwX>wcgvDR

rh>uG>vXw>vD>w>usJw>td.o;wcD xH*H>o[D.w>wdmusJRtqH;tHR xk;M>ySRo;'D; rh>uG>vXxHvDRql

Executive Summary in Burmese Language

ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံအေရွ႕ပုိုင္း ပဲခူးတုိ္င္းေဒသၾကီးတြင္ ေဘာဂထ ျမစ္တည္ရွိပါသည္။ ေဘာဂထ ေရအား

ေနရာ ၊ ၂၀၁၆ ဒီဇင္ဘာလတြင္ တစ္ေနရာ စုစုေပါင္းစီမံကိန္းႏွစ္ေနရာကို တစ္ေနရာမွ တစ္ေနရာသိ႔ု

ေရေလွာင္ကန္ဧရိယာအနီးအနားမွာ မိုးေလ၀သ၊ ရာသီဥတုႏွင့္ဆုိင္ေသာ သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္မ်ား

ရွင္းလင္းခ်က္ ယူနစ္ အထက္ပိုင္းဆည္ဧရိယာ အလည္ပုိင္းဆည္ဧရိယာ ေအာက္ပုိ္င္းဆည္ဧရိယာ(

စီမံကိန္းအား စီးပြားေရးႏွင့္ ေငြေၾကးဆိုင္ရာ ခြဲျခမ္းစိတ္ျဖာေလ့လာမႈမ်ား ျပဳလုပ္၍ သံုးသပ္ပါသည္။

ေအာက္ပါဇယားတြင္အဓိကတည္ေဆာက္မည့္ေရြးခ်ယ္ထားသည့္ဖ႕ြံ ျဖိဳးမႈ(၃)ခု၏ စြမ္းအင္ထုတ္လုပ္မႈ၊ စုစုေပါင္း

ေဖာ္ျပခ်က္ ယူနစ္ အဆင့္တစ္ဆင့္တည္ေဆာ အဆင့္ႏွစ္ဆင့္တည္ေဆာက္ေရး အဆင့္သံုးဆင့္တည္ေဆာက္

ေရြးခ်ယ္ထားေသာ တည္ေဆာက္မ(ႈ ၃)ခုအား သီးျခားစီမံကိန္းမ်ားအေနျဖင့္ တြက္ခ်က္ရာတြင္ တည္ေဆာက္မ(ႈ ၃)

အဆင့္သံုးဆင့္ပါေသာ အနိမ့္ဆံုးစီမံခ်က္တည္ေဆာက္ရန္ လုိအပ္ေသာအခ်ိန္မွာသံုးဆယ့္ေျခာက္လ ခန္႕ဟု

ေရရွည္တည္တံ့ရန္ ထပ္ေလာင္းေပါင္းထည့္ေသာ ပဏာမ ကနဦးေလ့လာဆန္းစစ္ေသာလူမႈေရးဆုိင္

နယ္ေျမအေနအထားရႈေထာင့္မွၾကည့္ျမင္္ရေသာ္ အေသးစားေရအားလွ်ပ္စစ္စီမံကိ္န္းသည္ ဆြေ

Description of the Project Area 26

Discussion and Conclusion on the Available Data 56

Geology and Geotechnical Conditions 69

Outline of Development Alternatives 82

Scope of Hydraulic Steelworks 83

xHwdmuDRtuydmuyRw>vD>w>usJRwz.t rlcd.uvHRoD.DRw>td.o; 'D;xHH>o[D.t*h>tusdR wz.

'fymzsgwh>vXtzDcd.tod;pJ;H>o[D.tzDcd.M. usdRusJtRwz.tw>vXmbl.vXmphRwz. ph>uD;

w>wdmusJRtvD>tusJtHRtd.'D;w>obH.bk.z;'d.vX rk>usdR0JRuGmwuyRhR< xHh>uD>*h>wuyR ph>uD;vDRI

xHvDRqlw>vD>w>usJtw>vJRxD.vJRxDtD> -uX;b.0J'D; w>rRtHRrh>usdRusJthRuwX>wcgvDR