Transcript Thailand - Electricity Consumption and GDP Growth

1. Thailand - Electricity Consumption and GDP Growth
140000
The economy grew 3.1%/yr. and electricity demand 6.5%/yr.
120000
GDP index or GWh
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Year
GDP index
GWh produced
2000
2001
2002
2003
2. Thailand – Increase of Generation vs. NT2
16000
NT2 provides 6% of consumption increase between 2009 & 2016
14000
12000
GWh
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Increase of GWh req
NT2 PE + SEC1
2013
2014
2015
2016
3. Interim Results of Least-Cost Risk Analysis
NT2
Cost
high
medium
low
Range of
PV Cost Saving*
- 63 to + 193
+ 111 to + 367
+ 286 to + 542
*according to gas value and demand
Overall NPV versus no NT2: USD 269 million
4. The Economic Value Chain
End-use gWh
times price =
Consumer WTP
Minus marginal
Transmission &
Distribution cost
Minus NT2
Investment,
O&M and E&S
management cost
Scenario
1. Base Case
2. Returns delayed one year
3. 10% Project Cost Over-run
4. Cases 2 & 3 combined
5. Low Demand
6. Case 5 & 30% cost over-run
=
power
value-added
ERR
17.1%
15.3%
15.9%
13.8%
13.6%
11.1%
5. Investment Cost (Financial)
Total Cost to
Commercial Operation
Date: USD1184.7 mm
135.9
of which contribution to GoL
USD 30 million
69.9
Development
Env & Social
675.9
302.9
Financing:
Power Plant
6. NT2 vs CCGT (Commercial)
fuel $/mm Capacity Cost $mm per 100MW
0.0460
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
4.00
4.50
4.75
35
0.0355
0.0372
0.0390
0.0408
0.0425
0.0443
0.0478
0.0513
0.0531
40
45
50
53.66
0.0368
0.0382
0.0395
0.0405
0.0386
0.0399
0.0413
0.0422
0.0403
0.0417
0.0430
0.0440
0.0421
0.0434
0.0448
0.0458
0.0439
0.0452
0.0465
0.0475
0.0456
0.0470
0.0483
0.0493
0.0492
0.0505
0.0518
0.0528
0.0527
0.0540
0.0554
0.0563
0.0544
0.0558
0.0571
0.0581
Yellow cell combinations: NT2 is cheaper
Inner-boxed CCGT prices show NT2 and gas very close
commercial competitors.
60
0.0422
0.0439
0.0457
0.0475
0.0492
0.0510
0.0545
0.0580
0.0598
7. Cash Flow From Operations
120.0
100.0
Non-GoL Dividends
USD millions
80.0
60.0
40.0
GoL dividends
Debt service
Tax
20.0
Royalty
0.0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
-20.0
time period
Chg Wkg Capital
Debt Service
Chg Reserves
Royalty Tax
Income Tax
GoL Dividends
Ext Dividends
8. Real Present Value Returns of and to Capital
PV GoL Returns
248 million
PV Debt Service
455 million
PV Non-GoL Dividends
328 million
Returns "of" and "to"
capital
GoL Equity: 25%; GoL returns: 43% of returns to all shareholders
9. Lao PDR Cumulative Returns
2000
1800
Lao returns cumulate to USD 1.8~1.9 billion;
Present Value of ~ USD 250 million at 10% DR
1600
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Gol Cumul Nominal Returns
Gol Cumul Real Returns
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
0
1
USD million
1400
Cumul PV real Gol Returns
10. Summary of Interim Findings
1. Based on real resource costs (no taxes and sunk costs),
NT2 is least-cost electricity; compared with CCGT the cost
difference is large enough for NT2 to “absorb” taxes,
royalties and commercial returns to equity.
2. NT2’s economic rate of return is satisfactory and robust.
3. When taxes, royalties and equity returns > 10% are added,
NT2 and CCGT are close competitors; but NT2 has a fixed
tariff, and CCGT costs will fluctuate with oil price changes.
4. GoL gets 43% of the returns for a 25% share holding, while
shareholders earn normal returns for this kind of investment.
5. These results will be amended once the environmental and
social costs now included (about USD 120 million) are fully
assessed, and the final project construction price is known.