Extract of Amaila Falls Hydrology Review Draft Report 23june2011

Halcrow Group Limited
Burderop Park Swindon Wiltshire SN4 0QD

Tel +44 (0)1793 812479 Fax +44 (0)1793 812089
www.halcrow.com

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with
the instructions of their client, PPA Energy, for their sole and
specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained
herein do so at their own risk.

Halcrow Group Limited 2011
PPA Energy

Amaila Falls Hydropower Project
Hydrology Review

Draft Report

June 2011
Halcrow Group Limited

PPA Energy
Amaila Falls Hydropower Project Hydrology Review
Draft Report
Contents Amendment Record
This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Revision Description Date Approved by
1 0 Draft Report 23/06/11 ZR

Draft Report

Draft Report 23 June 2011 as submitted.doc

Contents
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 4
2 Project Summary 6
2.1 The Project Location and Components 6
2.2 Hydropower Facility 7
3 Hydrology Review 8
3.1 Introduction 8
3.2 Review of Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Report, Kaehne Consulting Ltd., June 2002 8
3.3 Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Guyana Feasibility Study
Report Hydrology, Montgomery Watson Harza, December
2001 9
3.4 Hydroelectric Power Survey of Guyana Final Report, Montreal
Engineering Company Limited, April 1976 28
4 Review of Relevant Studies 35
4.1 Review of Hydraulic Headloss 35
4.2 Other Factors that Affect Energy Yield Estimation 36
4.3 Power Plant Output 38
4.4 Review of Sedimentation Control Plan and Management
Strategy 38
5 Energy Yield and Power Output Assessments 41
5.1 Basic Data and Assumptions 41
5.2 Energy Yields and Plant Output Assessments 42
5.3 Energy Yield Assessments for a Dry Year 44
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis 46
5.5 Uncertainty Analysis 47
5.6 Assessment of climate impacts on hydropower production 49
6 Summary and Conclusions 54
6.1 Review of Hydrology Studies 54
6.2 Review of Relevant Studies 55
6.3 Energy Yield and Power Output Assessments 55
References 57
Annex 1 Amaila Falls Hydropower Project
Salient Feature 58
Annex 2 Main Data Used in Energy Yield
Assessments 61
Annex C Site Visit Report 64
Draft Report

Doc No 0 Rev: 1 Date: June 2011 1
C:\RAFHHR\Reports\Draft Report 23 June 2011 as submitted.doc

Executive Summary
Halcrow Group Limited (Halcrow) was commissioned by Power Planning
Associates Ltd (PPA Energy) to undertake Hydrology Review of the
Amaila Falls Hydropower Project (the Project) in Guyana.
The Halcrow team carried out an initial review of the feasibility study
reports together with the recent environmental and social impact
assessment report and other documents related the Project. Subsequently,
an inspection was undertaken on the two hydrometric gauging stations
located located on the Kuribrong River downstream of Amaila Falls and
on Potaro River upstream Kaieteur Falls. Further analysis was focused on
the uncertainties of streamflows which were derived for the design of the
Project and its impact on the capability of the Project to produce the
energy. We have also undertaken review on other factors related to the
prediction of the power generated from the Project, including hydraulic
head losses, turbine and generator efficiencies and other power losses at
the power station and along the transmission line, together with impact of
climate changes, sedimentation management plan, etc.
This draft report describes our preliminary findings which are summarised
as follows:
(1) We have reviewed hydrology study reports produced during pre-
feasibility (1976) and feasibility (2001) stages of the Project and
undertaken further analysis based on data contained therein and data
obtained from visits at the Hydro-meteorological Service of the
Ministry of Agriculture in Guyana; Various sources of uncertainty in
the use of a monthly flow series from an adjacent catchment (Potage
River at Kaieteur Falls) and a simple transposition factor for deriving
monthly flows upstream of Amaila Falls have been assessed. These
include uncertainties in both hydrometric measurements taken
downstream of the Amaila Falls site in 1975 and 2001, and
uncertainties in the development of stage-discharge relationships at
both Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls.
(2) Notwithstanding the identified uncertainties, we concluded that,
given the available hydro-meteorological data, a transposition factor
of 0.3 applied to the monthly flow data at Kaieteur Falls is suitable
for estimating baseline monthly flows upstream of Amaila Falls.
(3) We have reviewed other factors/coefficients that affect power output
estimate of the power plant and our judgements are as follows:
for hydraulic headloss in the water conduits, a constant value of
15 m is not adequate and could result in an overestimate of power
output by up to 2% when all turbine-generator units run at full
design capacity;
Draft Report

other factors, such as the turbine-generator efficiency, rate for
scheduled and unscheduled outages of the plant, are considered to
be reasonable;
the power loss rates are considered low for such a long distance
transmission line.
(4) We have undertaken review on available sediment data and current
estimate of siltation rate, sediment management plan, and its impact
on both reservoir storage and turbine efficiency/deterioration, our
assessments are:
there is no reservoir sedimentation mitigation plan besides a broad
proposal that effort should be made to minimise erosion from
overland flows in the watershed area;
there is no provision for flushing outlets at the dam and the low
level outlet which is designed to meet compensatory flow is
inadequate for reservoir flushing or density current venting
operations;
the long term distribution of sediment in the reservoir is unclear,
which may affect power generation if coarse sediment settles in
the upper backwater region which may be part of the live storage
of the reservoir;
sedimentation is not expected to affect power generation in the
early life of the turbines; however for a long term if sedimentation
reaches the deeper region of the dam, bed level at the dam is
anticipated to reach drawoff intake level and therefore may affect
drawoff requirements to the powerhouse.
(5) We have estimated the power output from the turbine-generator unit
by taking account of the hydraulic headlosses using typical turbine
and generator efficiencies; our estimate indicates that at the rated
design flow of 50.2 m
3
/s the unit achieves approximately 153.5 MW
output while the reservoir is at full supply level, which is about 7%
lower than the quoted value of 165MW.
(6) We have estimated the energy yield based on the baseline flows of 41
years and obtained that:
an average annul energy yield at the generator terminals is
estimated as 1141 GWh, with the minimum and maximum yields
being 884 GWh and 1343 GWh, respectively;
an average annual energy output from the power plant (at the
transformer terminals taking account of machine outages and
transformer loss) is estimated as 1090GWh;
an average annual power available at the distribution point (at
Linda and Georgetown) is estimated from 1017 GWh to 1047
GWh taking account of transmission line losses;
for a dry year (90% dependable annual flows), the annual energy
yield is estimated at 994.8 GWh when the monthly average flows
are used for simulation. However, when daily flows are used for
simulation the annual energy yield estimate reduces to 952.8
Draft Report

GWh, indicating that using monthly flows could overestimate the
energy yield by up to 4.2%.
(8) We have assessed the energy yield with different reservoir full storage
levels (FSL) and simulation results indicate that as compared to the
existing designed FSL at 431.55 m the average annual energy yield
would increase by up to 3.75% and 6.7% if the FSL was increased to
434 m and 435.5 m, respectively.
(9) We have undertaken uncertainty analysis of the energy yields with
regard to the transposition factor varying from 0.276 to 0.437. We
can have a high level of confidence that the average energy output is
between 1046 GWh and 1129 GWh considering machine outages and
transformer losses.
(10) A preliminary climate change impact analysis of relevant General
Circulation Model (GCM) and Regional Circulation Model (RCM)
results for the Project indicates that there is a wide variety of
predictions of how rainfall patterns may change in the future but
suggests that there is a tendency for models to predict a general
decrease in rainfall in the area which would typically cause a resultant
reduction in river flows at the project site. Based on indicative climate
change related decreases in rainfalls, and assuming a linear response
between modelled rainfall and flows in the Amaila Falls catchment,
the predicted river flows are used to model possible likely impact on
future energy yields. The simulated energy yields indicate that the
impact of climate could result in reduction in annual energy yield
from 1.3 to 2% for different scenarios when reductions in rainfall
range from -0.6 to -2.9%..
It should be noted that the analysis and assessments presented in this
report are subject to the accuracy and completeness of the background
information and data provided.

Draft Report

1 Introduction
Halcrow Group Limited (Halcrow) was commissioned by Power Planning
Associates Ltd (PPA Energy) to undertake a Hydrology Review of the
Amaila Falls Hydropower Project in Guyana.
The purpose of the Hydrology Review is to assess the capability of the
Project to produce the energy that will be purchased by Guyana Power
and Light (GPL) under the long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).
The hydrology review will be a key element of the overall analysis and
design of the Project as hydrology will have a direct impact on the
financial obligations of GPL.
The main tasks can be summarised as follows:
(1) Reviewing the existing results, and any relevant studies, including
sedimentation control plans, as well as the quality of hydrologic data
gathered to assess the overall validity of the data and ultimately
confirm whether these studies are consistent with best industry
practices.
(2) Advising on whether the quality of the data obtained and
methodology applied, taken into account the characteristics of the
project site, could be used to adequately extrapolate the hydrology for
the project or if not, what would be necessary to do so.
(3) Providing input to the Inter-American Development Bank regarding
any modifications to the Projects generation/ dispatching figures
that will serve as an input for the Projects pro-forma financial
projections.
(4) Providing an opinion indicating if the currently available
information/models for climate change could be incorporated into
the hydrology scenarios and provide a preliminary opinion on how
the potential changes in rainfall patterns expected due to climate
change could affect, in the long term, the projects hydrological
projections and the level of confidence with which such an impact
can be assessed.
(5) Based on (1) through (4) above and taking into account the
characteristics of the project and available information, assess if an
alternative estimate of the projects basin hydrology and dispatching
scenarios should be developed and/or what additional considerations,
measurements, studies, if any, might be necessary to help assess the
Projects basin hydrology within acceptable standards for projects of
this nature.
The following principal activities were therefore necessary:
Examining the available data and assessing the suitability and
applicability of the studies undertaken to assess the water available to
produce energy.
Draft Report

Providing a high level assessment of the energy yields from the
project and whether the project is likely to generate the power rating
and the energy yield as per the documentation.
Identifying the degree of sedimentation risks to the Project and how
this would affect the operation and energy yield.
Building a bespoke energy yield model and carrying out energy yield
uncertainty analysis by explicitly considering the uncertainty in the
transposing of the flow record in order to ascertain confidence levels
to the hydrologic parameters used for the design of the Project.
Undertaking review on climate change impact on rainfalls in the area
which could potentially cause reduction in river flows at the Project
site in the long term.
The above were undertaken as an initial review on the documents
immediately available, followed by an on site visit to the two hydrometric
gauging stations and meetings with members of the Hydro-meteorological
Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, detailed desk study and reporting.
This draft report describes our preliminary findings of the Hydrology
Review. It is organised as follows:
The Executive Summary highlights key contents of the report;
Section 1 summarises the main tasks and activities of the Hydrology
Review study;
Section 2 contains a brief description of the Project;
Section 3 describes the detailed hydrology review;
Section 4 describes the review on other relevant studies, including review
on sedimentation management plant, main factors which affect the power
outputs of the Project;
Section 5 presents the energy yields assessments, including uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis and climate impact on energy yields,.
Section 6 is a brief summary of the preliminary findings.
Annex A contains the principal features of the Amaila Falls Hydropower
Project.
Annex B contains all data used for the energy yield and power output
assessments.
Annex C is a short site visit report summarising Halcrow Hydrology
Teams main activities during their visit to Guyana from 18 to 22 May
2011, including some site visit photos.

Draft Report

2 Project Summary
2.1 The Project Location and Components
The proposed Project is located at Amaila Falls in west central Guyana,
approximately 250 km southwest of Georgetown as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Site location and main project components
The Project includes a storage reservoir with a surface area of
approximately 23.3 km
2
(at full supply level) created by a 2.5 km long and
18.25 m high dam at the head of Amaila Falls at the confluence of the
Kuribrong and Amaila rivers, crossing both rivers. Electricity produced at
the plant will be delivered to Guyanas capital, Georgetown, and its second
largest town, Linden, by a 230kV electric transmission line and two new
substations. To provide access to the Hydropower Facility, new roads will
be constructed, and some existing roads will be upgraded.
The Project consists of the following three components:
Hydropower Facility: dam, reservoir, water tunnel, powerhouse,
onsite substation and switchyard and other ancillary systems.
Electrical Interconnection: approximately 270 km of high-voltage, 230
k transmission line and two remote substations (one at Linden, the
other at Georgetown).
Access Road: 85 km of new roads, and upgrading approximately 122
km of existing roads.
The Hydrology Review is directly linked to the hydropower facility
component.
Draft Report

2.2 Hydropower Facility
The primary components of the hydropower facility are the dam,
reservoir, and powerhouse as shown schematically in Figure 2.
The dam will be a concrete-faced rockfill structure about 2.5 km long,
crossing the Kuribrong and Amaila rivers, with a ridge dam between them.
The dam will create a primarily contiguous reservoir of approximately 23.3
km
2
in area at full supply level which is 431.55 m (amsl), providing an
active storage volume of about 101 million m
3
.
The spillway will be located on the Amaila section of the dam and, when
operating, water flowing over the spillway will continue over the Amaila
Falls and down the reduced-flow segment of the river to join with water
flowing from the powerhouse tailrace and into the Kuribrong River. The
spillway will also incorporate a Minimum Environmental Flow (MEF)
feature to pass water to part of the reduced-flow section and down the
falls during periods when there is no water otherwise flowing over the
spillway. Water from the reservoir will be delivered to the turbine
generators via a water intake structure and conduit system, consisting of a
headrace tunnel, vertical shaft, and power tunnel.

Figure 2 Schematic of the power plant
The powerhouse will house 4 Francis-type hydro-turbine generators, each
of equal capacity of 41.25 MW. The powerhouse will be located at the
bottom of the Amaila Falls escarpment, approximately 3 km from the
water intake. The main electrical substation and switchyard will be located
adjacent to the powerhouse. The Plant will also include a Pelton-type
hydro-turbine auxiliary generator, emergency diesel generators and other
support, backup and ancillary systems.
The details of the project salient features are listed in Annex 1.
Draft Report

3 Hydrology Review
3.1 Introduction
The review of the existing hydrological results is based on an analysis of
three key hydrological reports and information obtained during the project
teams visit to Guyana from 18 to 22 May 2011, including site visits to the
hydrometric gauging stations located on the Kuribrong River downstream
of Amaila Falls and on Potaro River upstream Kaieteur Falls and meetings
at the Hydro-meteorological Service of the Ministry of Agriculture.
The key reports reviewed are:
Review of Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Report,
Kaehne Consulting Ltd. June 2002 (Ref 1)
Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Guyana Feasibility Study Report
Hydrology, Montgomery Watson Harza , December 2001 (Ref 2)
Hydroelectric Power Survey of Guyana Final Report, Montreal
Engineering Company Limited , April 1976 (Ref 3 )
The review of these reports, supplemented by additional data analysis, has
sought to establish the uncertainty in various components of the
hydrological analysis undertaken to date in identifying the available water
for use in Amaila Falls power generation studies.
3.2 Review of Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Report, Kaehne Consulting Ltd., June 2002
The Kaehne feasibility study report review was provided to Halcrow for
review prior to the site visit. It provides a review of the feasibility study
report produced by Montgomery Watson Harza in December 2001 (see
3.3) and the relationship between the Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls
catchments. It suggests that at no stage have concurrent hydrological data
been collected to verify the relationship between the two water basins
and recommends that additional stream flow data be collected at the base
of the Amaila Falls for at least a sufficient period to confirm the
relationship with Kaieteur [Falls]. A brief reference is made to the flow
records available at Kaieteur Falls (1950 to 1991) and flow transposition
based on an average flow ration of 0.30 (with arrange of 0.24 to 0.40) but
no details of this transposition are reported.
It is suggested that recent rainfall in the region has become more spread
out across the seasons and accordingly the effect of the dry season
should be less.
Kaehne also suggest that uncertainty in reservoir storage is a critical
design prerequisite in determining the amount of available water in the
dry season.
Draft Report

3.3 Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Guyana Feasibility Study
Report Hydrology, Montgomery Watson Harza, December
2001
The MWH feasibility study report was provided to Halcrow for review
prior to the site visit. It contains, inter alia, documentation on regional
hydro-meteorological data, Kuribrong river field measurements
undertaken in 2001, streamflow analysis and reservoir evaporation.
3.3.1 Hydro-meteorological Data
MWH present a summary of hydro-meteorological data collated from the
Hydro-meteorological Service and considered by the feasibility study. This
is reproduced in Table 1.
Table 1: List of hydro-meteorological data (after MWH, 2001)

It is stated that rainfall and pan evaporation at the Kaieteur Falls
meteorological station is representative for the project site. No further
consideration is given to placing these observed data in the context of
regional records.
All datasets are characterised by periods of extensive missing data. The
HEC-4 monthly streamflow simulation model was used to infill missing
Draft Report

data (72 months in a 492 month period)
1
in the monthly record for
Kaieteur Falls. The infilled flow record is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Kaieteur Falls monthly flow record infilled (after data reproduced from MWH, 2001)
Kaieteur Falls, Potaro River (1950-1990)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
Date
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
NB: Infilled data shown in red

The annual (infilled) streamflow series was checked for consistency
visually through plotting annual totals, a 5-year running average and a
single mass curve (as presented in Figures 2 and 3, pg. 16). These figures
are repeated in Figure 2.

1
Erroneously, Table 1 suggests that 79 months of data were infilled for Kaieteur Falls.
Draft Report

Figure 2: Kaieteur Falls annual flow record and single mass curve (after MWH, 2001)
(a) Annual Flows

(b) Single Mass Curve

A cyclic trend is observed and tentatively related with El Nino episodes,
although it is noted that there is no one-to-one correspondence between
the incidence of El Nino and dry streamflow years at Kaieteur Falls.
Figure 2(a) shows that only a single cycle of approximately 20 years is
identifiable from the observed data and as such confidence in the
persistence of this cycle is low.
Further tests to check the consistency of the annual streamflow have been
undertaken using both a linear trend model and classical decomposition.
Figure 3 shows the identified trends suggesting that with a simple linear
model (a) there is a reducing trend of 0.36 m
3
/s per year whereas with a
decomposition model that includes a 20 year seasonal cycle (b) there is an
Draft Report

increasing trend of 0.86 m
3
/s per year. The reported accuracy measures
suggest that the decomposition model is the preferred model.
Figure 3: Kaieteur Falls streamflow 1950-1990 consistency checks (after data reproduced from MWH,
2001)
(a) Linear trend model

(b) Decomposition model (20 year cycle)

The relative importance of the uncertainty associated with the infilling of
missing data is informed through a comparison of the magnitude of the
infilled data with the observed daily data flow duration curve (as presented
by MWH in Table 14, pg. 17). Table 2 and Figure 4 reproduce the
monthly / annual flow duration data, indicating that higher than average
flows are typically constrained to the May to August period. Table 2
indicates that the infilled missing data tends to be associated with
Draft Report

moderate flows (i.e., the 35 to 65 %ile range). As such, uncertainty with
the infilling process is considered to have a negligible impact on the
overall uncertainty associated with the derived inflow series for Amaila
Falls site.
Table 2: Kaieteur Falls Flow Duration Table (after MWH, 2001)
Flow Duration Table Based on Daily Discharge Measurements (m
3
/s) at Kaieteur Falls, Potaro River (after MWH, 2001)
Probability of
exceedence (%)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
0.5 668.4 750.5 563.6 909.1 909.1 1076.2 807.1 756.1 606 430.5 456 591.9 835.4
1 645.7 591.9 535.2 807.1 855.3 991.2 778.8 679.7 529.6 305.9 393.6 535.2 776
2 594.7 509.8 472.9 722.2 798.6 911.9 759 628.7 450.3 266.8 328.5 478.6 708
3 574.9 475.8 436.1 676.8 770.3 858.1 727.8 574.9 396.5 220 305.9 458.8 662.7
4 532.4 441.8 407.8 640 744.8 826.9 708 546.6 348.3 207.3 276.1 436.1 634.4
5 509.8 422 390.8 597.6 730.7 807.1 682.5 509.8 334.2 191.2 247 413.5 606
10 427.6 345.5 308.7 467.3 674 699.5 603.2 433.3 259.1 132 181.5 337 495.6
15 371 294.5 235.1 393.6 631.5 640 540.9 388 216.6 106.2 143.6 300.2 427.6
20 339.8 253.7 200.2 320 591.9 606 498.4 348.3 183.5 90.6 120.1 269.6 371
25 294.5 214.7 166.8 257.4 543.7 572.1 467.3 317.2 164.3 76.5 102.5 236.8 317.2
30 264.8 180.7 141.3 218.3 504.1 546.6 430.5 300.2 143 67.1 89.2 208.4 277.5
35 238.7 161.7 124.6 178.1 467.3 526.8 399.3 281.8 126 59.5 73.3 182.4 243.6
40 203.9 140.5 106.8 150.1 430.5 506.9 373.8 263.9 111.6 54.4 63.4 166 209.6
45 179.8 122.3 95.4 128.3 390.8 492.8 356.8 244.4 101.4 50.7 57.5 147 178.4
50 161.7 106.2 85.5 108.2 348.3 467.3 334.2 233.9 92.9 47.3 52.4 135.9 152.9
55 139.1 91.2 75.9 91.2 303 444.6 317.2 218.3 83.8 44.7 48.4 118.1 124.6
60 121.8 78.7 67.1 77 272.4 427.6 297.4 202.2 74.8 42.8 45.3 104.8 107.6
65 105.6 70 60.9 66.3 244.4 399.3 277.3 183.5 68 40.8 41.3 91.2 87.8
70 91.8 61.5 55.8 57.2 199.4 373.8 253.7 171.1 62.3 38.8 39.1 77.6 73.1
75 80.4 54.9 51.3 51 161.7 348.3 236.8 158.3 57.2 36.8 36.8 63.2 60.9
80 68.5 49.3 46.7 45 120.9 317.2 214.7 145.3 52.4 35.1 33.7 55.5 52.4
85 58.3 43.9 43.3 40.2 83.8 288.9 194.8 129.7 47 32.9 30.3 49.3 45.6
90 51 37.4 39.6 36 57.5 251.8 173.6 114.7 43 30.9 27.8 44.7 39.9
95 43.9 28.2 30 29.5 41.1 210.1 133.7 97.4 38.2 28 23.9 36.8 31.7
96 41.9 27.4 26.8 26.2 36.8 191.4 126.9 90.6 37.4 26.7 23 32.3 29.7
97 37.7 25.9 25 21.2 33.7 181.5 115.3 77.6 36.5 25.8 22.2 30 27.5
98 29.5 22.9 23 15.7 31.7 165.1 102.8 69.4 35.1 24.8 21.3 27.9 24.6
99 24.1 20.3 20.9 14.1 26.4 144.4 90.6 54.1 32.9 23.3 19.4 26.4 22.1
99.5 21.6 17 15.2 12.6 23.9 129.1 83.3 49.6 31.4 22.4 18.4 24.9 19.8
100 18.9 14.2 13.2 11.2 11.2 80.4 21 21.2 29.5 20.9 17.3 21.6 11.2
Key: Data highlighted in an italic, bold red font indicates the range over which mising data has been estimated.

Draft Report

Figure 4: Kaieteur Falls Flow Duration Curves (after data reproduced from MWH, 2001)
Kaieteur Falls Flow Duration Curves
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Probabilioty of Exceedence (%)
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual

3.3.2 Kuribrong river field measurements
Stage and velocity measurements at a location near the anticipated location
of the powerhouse are reported.
Water levels were recorded at 15-minute intervals using a pressure
transducer and data logger from December 2000. No details are provided
relating to whether the pressure transducer was calibrated and periodically
checked against a manual staff gauge.
A series of 38 velocity measurements were undertaken by boat using a
weighted current meter and velocity counter during the period of 27
th
June
to 11
th
of August 2001 (i.e., during the wet season). Measurements were
taken at 1 metre intervals across the river (approximately 50 intervals) and
at depths of 0.2, 0.6 and 0.8 total depth. River levels were identified
referencing a temporary benchmark and the pressure transducer datum.
Streamflow was calculated by averaging velocities from the 3 depths using
the mid-section method. Full details of the estimation of each of the spot
flow measurements are given in Attachment 2 of the MWH report,
including a summary record which is reproduced herein as Table 3.
Draft Report

Table 3: Kuribrong River spot flow measurements 2001 (after MWH, 2001)

From the resultant estimates of streamflow, a stage-discharge relationship
for the Kuribrong River was established by estimating the stage of zero
flow by trial and error and estimating constants C and n through fitting a
single segment best fit linear trend line. This rating is shown in the
feasibility study report in Figure 4, pg. 20 and is reproduced herein as
Figure 5.
Draft Report

Figure 5: Kuribrong River stage-discharge relationship (after MWH, 2001)

It is notable that the reported rating equation on pg. 19 of the feasibility
report records a different stage of zero flow (1.7 m) to that recorded by
the linear trend fitting (0.52 m). These different values for the stage of
zero flow have been checked using the stated constant values and a least
squares approach to identify that the stage of zero flow is mis-recorded in
the reported rating equation.
It is also apparent that some of the spot flow measurements were
discarded from the generation of the stage-discharge relationship due to
large discrepancies with an initial rating. This includes most notably a spot
flow measurement on July 24
th
which appears to have the datum mis-
recorded and more importantly two spot flow measurements estimating
streamflow less than 27 m
3
/s.
Stage-discharge relationships have been rederived using a least (log)
squares approach, using both a fixed value for the stage of zero flow
(0.52 m as per MWH, 2001) and an optimised value of the stage of zero
flow (2.25 m). It is assumed that the Adjusted Approximately to
Transducer Datum recorded water level provides the best estimate of
stage for each spot flow measurement. All spot flow measurements except
the measurement of July 24
th
(assumed mis-recorded datum) have been
included in this analysis.
Figure 6 shows a summary of this analysis. The spot flow measurements
are plotted in (a), clearly indicating the anomalous gauging of July 24
th
.
Stage-discharge relationships, with both a fixed and optimised value of the
stage of zero flow, are plotted on a logarithmic scale in (b). The optimised
value of the stage of zero flow plots the spot flow measurements in a
straight line. Best fit trend lines fitted to the data provide estimates of the
constants C and n of 77.5532 and 1.1683 (optimised stage of zero flow)
and 2.2967 and 3.4404 (0.52 fixed value for stage of zero flow). Model
Draft Report

residuals are shown in (c), suggesting that a multiple segment rating may
outperform a single segment rating (a break in the trend of model residuals
can be identified at a stage of approximately 3.00 m).
Figure 6: Kuribrong River Spot Flow Measurements and Stage-discharge Relationship
(a) Spot flow measurements
Kuribrong River Spot Flow Measurements (June - August 2001)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Stage (m)
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
adj. levels

(b) Stage-discharge relationships
y = 3.4404x + 0.3611
R
2
= 0.9578
y = 1.1683x + 1.8896
R
2
= 0.975
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
log (Stage (m))
l
o
g

(
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
)
log(stage-0.52) log(stage-2.25)

Draft Report

(c) Stage-discharge relationship residuals
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Stage (m)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
Residual (a=0.52) Residual (a=2.25)

Comparing Figure 5 and Figure 6, it is apparent that there are minor
inconsistencies (and uncertainty) in the stage-discharge ratings derived
using a fixed stage of zero flow. However, more importantly, Figure 6
suggests that a preferred single segment stage-discharge relationship may
be identified by optimising the stage of zero flow. Importantly, the
optimised stage-discharge rating results in lower estimates of flow at low
stages.
With particular reference to the study requirements of assessing
uncertainty in the Amaila Falls inflow record, uncertainty in the Amaila
Falls stage-discharge relationship (2001) has been calculated based on the
data presented in Figure 6. This is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Amaila Falls stage-discharge relationship (2001) uncertainty
Percentile 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95%
Ratio -12.6% -10.4% -8.3% -4.3% -1.2% 1.0% 2.8% 5.4% 7.6% 9.7% 11.1%

Further inspection of the spot flow measurements suggest additional
uncertainty in the estimation of stage. It is notable that automated level
readings from the pressure transducer and logger tend to provide a lower
estimate of stage than the manually observed adjusted levels, as illustrated
in Figure 7. There does not appear to be any direct relationship between
stage uncertainty and magnitude of the spot flow measurement. The
average discrepancy between the transducer logged water levels (08:00;
12:00; and 24 hour average) and the manually observed adjusted levels are:
0.08 m (
+
/- s.d. 0.13 m); 0.05 m (
+
/- s.d. 0.08 m); and 0.06 m (
+
/- s.d.
0.09 m) respectively.
Draft Report

Figure 7: Kuribrong River Spot Flow Measurement Stage Uncertainty (after MWH 2001)
Kuribrong River Spot Flow Measurements Stage Uncertainty (June - August 2001)
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Spot Flow Measurement (m
3
/s)
S
t
a
g
e

U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y

(
m
)
adj. levels - 08:00 water level adj. levels - 12:00 water level adj. levels - 24hr average water level

Assuming approximately 7-9 minutes per panel, each 50 panel
measurement would take approximately 67.5 hours to complete. Given
an early morning start time, it can be assumed that the 12:00 water level
would provide a suitable reference for the average water level during the
period of measurement.
Accordingly, an alternative optimised stage-discharge rating was sought
using the 12:00 water levels as the reference stage, providing a stage of
zero flow of 2.34 m and estimates of the constants C and n of 91.1575 and
1.1715. However, model performance criterion suggests a poorer model
(R
2
=0.9275 vis--vis 0.975).
It is also recognised that additional uncertainty in the estimation of
streamflow from velocity measurements can be assessed by comparing
velocities at 0.2, 0.6 and 0.8 total depth. An example of indicative
uncertainty in the estimation of velocity is given with reference to low flow
measurements taken on the 31
st
July 3
rd
August.
This comparison has illustrated potential systematic bias in the estimation
of average panel velocity, and subsequent overestimation of flow, for
those panels where no readings were recorded at the 0.6 depth and / or
0.8 depth. Table 5 shows the results of uncertainty in discharge estimation
based on assuming a minimum velocity for depth soundings where no
revolutions are reported, vis--vis the reported discharge and a calculated
discharge based on using a single point method (0.6 depth) of estimating
average velocity.

Draft Report

Table 5: Selected Kuribrong River Velocity Measurement and Discharge Computation Uncertainty
(after MWH, 2001)
Discharge (m
3
/s) Method
31
st
July 1
st
August 2
nd
August 3
rd
August
Reported Discharge 30.58 27.63 22.99 26.64
Discharge Check Assumed 0 revs. 26.25 24.41 20.76 23.37
Discharge Check 1 pt (0.6d) reading 29.49 28.07 23.09 26.69

This suggests that a further important source of uncertainty can be also
attributed to estimating low flows based on a plausible bias in the
estimation of discharge (overestimation of approximately 10%) during low
flows.
3.3.3 Streamflow analysis
Streamflow analysis reported by MWH sought to relate flow in the
Kuribrong River (at Amaila Falls) to flow in the Potaro River (at Kaieteur
Falls).
Reference is made to an aerial reconnaissance observation that it was
realized from the vegetation cover that the rainfall over the Kuribrong
River basin could be somewhat higher than that over the Potaro River
basin.
A summary of 22 spot flow measurements undertaken in 1975 as part of
pre-feasibility studies is presented to suggest an average ratio of flow
between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls of 0.3, with a range of ratios
between 0.24 to 0.40 (Table 15, pg. 22). No further consideration of
possible reasons for the observed range of ratios is reported. The pre-
feasibility spot flow measurements are further considered herein in 3.4.3.
A comparison of ratios between additional spot flow measurements on the
Kuribrong River (as described in 3.3.2) and estimated flow on the Potaro
River suggests:
A median ratio of 0.352
A mean ratio of 0.413
A minimum ratio of 0.182
A maximum ratio of 1.825
This is summarised in Attachment 2 (pgs. 4852) and Figure 6 of the
MWH report. No further consideration of possible reasons for the
observed range of ratios is reported.
The stream flow analysis is summarised thus: The 1975 prefeasibility
hydrology report suggested a factor of 0.26 to convert the Potaro flows to
the Kuribrong flows. For this study, a factor of 0.30 was considered more
appropriate.
Draft Report

Figure 8 shows a comparison of flows at Amaila Falls and Kaieteur Falls
for the period 14
th
February to 13
th
August 2001. Derived from the MWH
201 report Figure 6 (pg. 21), it shows multiple ratings for the Amaila Falls
site, as follows:
Fixed rating (adj. levels) rating as developed by MWH (2001) where
the stage of zero flow was identified prior to estimation of rating C
and n constants; reference level taken as [river levels] adjusted
approximately to transducer datum.
Optimised rating 1 (adj. levels) a preferred revised rating undertaken
as part of this review where all rating parameters were identified
through least squares optimisation; reference level taken as [river
levels] adjusted approximately to transducer datum.
Optimised rating 2 (12:00 level) an alternative revised rating
undertaken as part of this review where all rating parameters were
identified through least squares optimisation; reference level taken as
transducer level recorded at 12:00.

Figure 8: Comparison of concurrent measurements of Potaro River and Kuribrong River Flows (2001)
Estimated Kuribrong River Daily Flows (February - August 2001)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1
4
/
0
2
/
2
0
0
1
2
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
0
1
2
8
/
0
2
/
2
0
0
1
0
7
/
0
3
/
2
0
0
1
1
4
/
0
3
/
2
0
0
1
2
1
/
0
3
/
2
0
0
1
2
8
/
0
3
/
2
0
0
1
0
4
/
0
4
/
2
0
0
1
1
1
/
0
4
/
2
0
0
1
1
8
/
0
4
/
2
0
0
1
2
5
/
0
4
/
2
0
0
1
0
2
/
0
5
/
2
0
0
1
0
9
/
0
5
/
2
0
0
1
1
6
/
0
5
/
2
0
0
1
2
3
/
0
5
/
2
0
0
1
3
0
/
0
5
/
2
0
0
1
0
6
/
0
6
/
2
0
0
1
1
3
/
0
6
/
2
0
0
1
2
0
/
0
6
/
2
0
0
1
2
7
/
0
6
/
2
0
0
1
0
4
/
0
7
/
2
0
0
1
1
1
/
0
7
/
2
0
0
1
1
8
/
0
7
/
2
0
0
1
2
5
/
0
7
/
2
0
0
1
0
1
/
0
8
/
2
0
0
1
0
8
/
0
8
/
2
0
0
1
Date
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
Fixed Rating (adj. levels) Optimised Rating 1 (adj. levels) Optimised Rating 2 (12:00 levels) Estimated Potaro River Daily Flows (m3/s)

It is notable that at high stages the MWH rating suggests that the flow at
Amaila Falls may exceed that at Kaieteur Falls and at low stages the
revised optimised rating suggest no flow at Amaila Falls. Given the
characteristics of the respective catchments, it is likely that these features
are attributable to uncertainty in extrapolation of the derived ratings for
Amaila Falls.
Draft Report

Accordingly, putting to one side uncertainty in the Kaieteur Falls rating, it
is considered more instructive to compare flow ratios within the gauged
range of stage at Amaila Falls (2.64 m to 4.2 m). A revised estimate of
ratios between estimated flows on the Kuribrong River and Potaro River,
taking a 3 day moving average to account for variation in timing of flow, is
given in Table 6 and Figure 9. It is suggested that there is a tendency for
the ratio to increase as a function of stage.
Table 6: Summary of estimates of flow ratios between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls
Ratio Method
Median Mean Min Max s.d.
Fixed Rating (adj. levels) 0.312 0.337 0.206 0.607 0.096
Optimised Rating 1 (adj. levels) 0.299 0.319 0.178 0.604 0.087
Optimised Rating 2 (12:00 levels) 0.319 0.339 0.192 0.646 0.091

Figure 9: Estimates of flow ratios between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls by stage
Estimated ratios between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls (2001)
Fixed: y = 0.1182x - 0.047 (R
2
= 0.1999)
Opt 1: y = 0.0864x + 0.0379 (R
2
= 0.13)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2.64 2.84 3.04 3.24 3.44 3.64 3.84 4.04
Kuribrong River Stage (m)
R
a
t
i
o
Fixed Rating (adj. levels) Optimised Rating 1 (adj. levels) Optimised Rating 2 (12:00 levels)
Linear (Fixed Rating (adj. levels)) Linear (Optimised Rating 1 (adj. levels))

uncertainty in the Amaila Falls inflow record, flow ratios have been
calculated for each decile based on the preferred data (optimised rating 1)
presented in Figure 9. This is shown in Table 7.

Draft Report

Table 7: Kaieteur Falls Amaila Falls 3 day M.A. flow ratio uncertainty (hydrometric data, 2001)
Percentile 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Ratio 0.230 0.243 0.263 0.287 0.299 0.316 0.347 0.383 0.454

Furthermore, it is instructive to consider the variation in flow ratios both
on a 31 day moving average basis to account for uncertainty in the flow
ratio estimation over a monthly duration and also on a calendar month
basis to assess if any seasonality in flow ratio can be identified. Estimates
of 31 day moving average ratios between estimated flows on the
Kuribrong River and Potaro River are given in Table 8.
Table 8: Summary of estimates of 31 day M.A. flow ratios between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls
Ratio Method
Median Mean Min Max s.d.
Fixed Rating (adj. levels) 0.409 0.423 0.276 0.707 0.131
Optimised Rating 1 (adj. levels) 0.383 0.359 0.264 0.486 0.069
Optimised Rating 2 (12:00 levels) 0.379 0.373 0.279 0.513 0.066

uncertainty in the Amaila Falls inflow record, flow ratios have been
calculated for each decile based on the preferred data (optimised rating 1)
summarised in Table 8. This is shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Kaieteur Falls Amaila Falls 3 day M.A. flow ratio uncertainty (hydrometric data, 2001)
Percentile 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Ratio 0.276 0.292 0.297 0.303 0.383 0.396 0.421 0.423 0.439

Table 10 shows a summary of the monthly flow ratios. This tentatively
suggests that the flow ratio is notably different in May (0.43-0.46) than it is
in June through to August (0.27-0.32). Flow ratios for other months are
not presented due to increased uncertainties related to the extrapolation of
the stage-discharge relationship.

Draft Report

Table 10: Summary of monthly flow ratios between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls
Ratio Method
Count Mean Min Max
May 24 0.45 0.19 0.69
Jun 22 0.29 0.20 0.47
Jul 30 0.32 0.19 0.59
Fixed Rating (adj. levels)
Aug 11 0.27 0.18 0.46
May 24 0.43 0.19 0.69
Jun 22 0.28 0.19 0.43
Jul 30 0.30 0.19 0.58
Optimised Rating 1 (adj. levels)
Aug 11 0.27 0.17 0.46
May 24 0.46 0.21 0.74
Jun 22 0.30 0.20 0.44
Jul 30 0.32 0.21 0.62
Optimised Rating 2 (12:00 levels)
Aug 11 0.29 0.19 0.49

Further analysis on the estimation of the stage-discharge relationship at
Kaieteur Falls shows that spot flow measurements have been taken at
Kaieteur Falls during the period June 1949 to May 1989 and over a range
of flows of 10.2 m
3
/s to 778.3 m
3
/s. The station history held at the
Hydro-meteorological Service suggests that a stage-discharge relationship
was prepared in May 1956 and again in June 1963. Documented analysis
presented in the station files (undated) suggests a possible change in rating
in approximately 1966 (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: Kaieteur Falls stage-discharge relationship analysis (undated)

The station history records also note that large departures from the rating
in 1966 could be attributable to a shifting control at Kaieteur Falls due to
clandestine diamond operations diving in the river and / or uncertainty in
the gauge datum.

Draft Report

Figure 11 shows the variation in channel cross-section associated with
three spot flow measurements taken in February 1971, August 1973 and
March 1975, indicating in particular a difference in bed level between 1971
and 1973.
Figure 11: Kaieteur Falls river cross-section (selected spot flow measurements)

A summary of the station rating and spot flow measurement history is
presented in Figure 12. Of particular note:
(a) shows that spot flow measurements are typically closely distributed
around the rating, with few visible significant deviations.
(b) shows that a significant cluster of spot flow measurements were
undertaken prior to 1957, over a range of flows of 30 to 800 m
3
/s. A
secondary cluster of measurements are evident during the period 1966 to
1975, although the flow range gauged is somewhat narrower.
(c) shows the deviations from the rating for each spot flow measurement
are typically within
+
/- 20% across all stages, although a group of notable
outliers (~ + 70%) exist at a stage of approximately 2.7 m.
(d) shows how the deviations change with date, indicating increased
deviations post 1963 and in particular in 1986.

Draft Report

Figure 12: Summary of Kaieteur Falls rating and spot flow measurement history
(a) Rating and Spot Flow Measurements (b) Spot Flow Measurements by Date
Kaieteur Falls Stage-Discharge Rating and Spot Flow Measurements
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Flow (m
3
/s)
S
t
a
g
e

(
m
)
Rating Spot Flow Measurement

Kaieteur Falls - Spot Flow Measurements by Date
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
4
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
9
Date
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
Spot Flow Measurements

(c) Spot Flow Measurements Deviations from Rating by Stage (d) Spot Flow Measurements Deviations from Rating by Date
Kaieteur Falls - Spot Flow Measurements by Stage
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
1
.6
1
.8 2
2
.2
2
.4
2
.6
2
.8 3
3
.2
3
.4
3
.6
3
.8 4
4
.2
4
.4
4
.6
4
.8 5
5
.2
Stage (m)
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

R
a
t
i
n
g

(
%
)

Kaieteur Falls - Spot Flow Measurements by Date
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
4
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
5
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
6
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
7
9
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
3
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
5
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
7
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
8
9
Date
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

R
a
t
i
n
g

(
%
)

Draft Report

Doc No RAFHHR Rev: 1.0 Date: June 2011 27

This preliminary review of the Kaieteur Falls rating and spot flow
measurement history suggests that the rating may not be consistent and that
further consideration of temporal changes may be warranted (for example,
to identify whether a significant and persistent change in the low flow rating
has occurred post early 1970s).
Notwithstanding possible inconsistency in the stage-discharge rating, and
with particular reference to the study requirements of assessing uncertainty
in the Amaila Falls inflow record, uncertainty in the Kaieteur Falls stage-
discharge relationship has been calculated based on the data presented in
Figure 12. This is shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Kaieteur Falls stage-discharge relationship uncertainty
Percentile 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95%
Deviation -13.9% -10.1% -5.4% -2.3% -1.2% -0.1% 1.5% 4.3% 6.3% 10.8% 14.6%

3.3.4 Reservoir evaporation
Net reservoir evaporation for use in reservoir operation computations has
been calculated (MWH, Table 18, pg. 25) using monthly average data based
on:
Pan evaporation at Kaieteur Falls (1959-1974)
Rainfall at Kaieteur Falls (1953-1978)
Estimated flow at Amaila Falls (1950-1990)
A pan coefficient of 0.75 has been assumed to estimate lake evaporation. An
estimate of catchment losses has been made using the estimated flow and
observed rainfall data (rainfall minus runoff) the losses have been
equally apportioned to evapo-transpiration and infiltration. Estimated net
evaporation has been calculated by subtracting the estimate of evapo-
transpiration from estimated reservoir evaporation (zero bounded). The
MWH analysis is repeated in Table 12.
Table 12: Estimated net reservoir evaporation (reproduced after MWH, 2001)
Month
Observed Pan
Evaporation (mm)
Estimated Reservoir
Evaporation (mm)
Observed Rainfall
(mm)
Computed Runoff
(mm)
Rainfall minus
Runoff (mm)
Estimated Net
Evaporation (mm)
Jan 108 81 364 257 107 28
Feb 110 83 228 178 50 58
Mar 132 99 243 158 85 57
Apr 125 94 331 219 112 38
May 133 99 591 453 138 30
Jun 145 109 646 566 80 69
Jul 137 103 505 447 58 74
Aug 144 108 337 314 23 97
Sep 142 106 185 147 38 87
Oct 138 104 148 83 65 72
Nov 126 95 246 97 149 21
Dec 108 81 410 202 208 0
Annual 1,548 1,162 4,234 3,121 1,113 629

In addition to unknown uncertainties in the use of observed rainfall at
Kaieteur Falls to represent catchment average rainfall in the Amaila Falls
Draft Report


catchment and in the transposition factor of 0.3 used to estimate Amaila
Falls computed runoff, additional uncertainties exist in the use of selected
pan coefficient and assumptions on estimation of catchment evapo-
transpiration and infiltration. Furthermore, it is not clear that this calculation
accurately estimates net evaporation from the reservoir for use in reservoir
operation computations.
3.4 Hydroelectric Power Survey of Guyana Final Report, Montreal
Engineering Company Limited, April 1976
The Guyana Energy Agency was visited by the Project Team on 20 May
2011 to identify relevant sections of the above named report for the
purposes of the Hydrology review. The following sections were identified to
contain relevant information:
Volume 2, Appendix 3, Hydrology Studies (pp. A3-1 A.3-15)
Volume 4, Appendix 9, River Basin Inventory ( 2.4, pp. A9-47 A9-
52)
Volume 5, Appendix 11, Pre-feasibility site studies, Part 1. Amaila
Project ( 1.5, pp. A11-17 A11-20)
3.4.1 Volume 2, Appendix 3, Hydrology Studies (pp. A3-1 A.3-15)
Vol. 2 App. 3 describes the general climate of Guyana. It is noted that
Guyanas rainfall is produced primarily by the cumulus scale and meso-
convective scale weather systems linked with the Inter-Tropical
Convergence Zone (ITCZ), and to a lesser extent by the cloud-cluster scale
weather system. The oscillation of the ITCZ between 3 N and 8 N is
primarily responsible for the two rainy seasons in northern Guyana.
An isohyetal map reflecting observed rainfall and known orographic effects
is given within App. 3 (Figure A3-3), and is re-produced in part in Figure 13.
Isohyets are given in inches and are typically based on the annual rainfall of
1971, as observed at sites identified by a . The Kaieteur Falls and Amaila
Falls sites are marked as (KF) and (AF) respectively.
Draft Report


Figure 13: Typical isohyetal map of Guyana (part reproduced after Montreal Engineering Company
Limited, 1976)

Additionally, Vol. 5, App.11 (see 3.4.3) provides the locations of the Amaila
Falls site and Kaieteur Falls, together with their respective catchment
boundaries (Figure A11-1). This is part reproduced in Figure 14
Figure 14: Location of Amaila and Kaieteur Falls sites (part reproduced after Montreal Engineering
Company Limited, 1976)

AF
KF
Draft Report


Visual comparison of these two figures suggests that annual rainfall is
greater in the Amaila Falls catchment when compared to the Kaieteur Falls
catchment. Geo-rectification and subsequent GIS analysis suggests an
annual average rainfall of 147 inches and 116 inches respectively.
Interestingly, Figure 14 also suggests the possibility of inter-basin transfer
into the Kuribrong basin upstream of Amaila Falls. The feasibility of these
transfers is unknown, but if these could be put in place, this could
significantly reduce the uncertainty and risk associated with water supply.
A summary of runoff patterns describes the response of streamflow to the
rainfall seasons for the main rivers in Guyana. High flows typically occur in
May through to early September, with a secondary peak in December and
January.
Fifteen (15) years of data from a class A evaporation pan at Kaieteur Falls
is summarised indicating an annual average evaporation of approximately 60
(59.37) inches. It is reported that comparisons of pan evaporation data with
evaporation estimated using the Penman formula were undertaken by the
Guyana Hydrometeorological Service to derive a local pan coefficient of
1.06. No details of this comparison have been reviewed.
A water balance approach to the estimation of inflow to the proposed
Amaila Falls site is presented, accounting for both an increase in effective
rainfall falling directly onto the associated reservoir surface and an increase
in evaporation from the associated reservoir surface. A net evaporation
rate from the reservoir surface of 20 inches is estimated reflecting a
reduction in the dependable flow that can be maintained during periods of
drought.
Table 13 shows repeated calculations of the water balance confirming the
net evaporation rate of approximately 20 inches (EL P1) and the
(approximately 3 %) reduction in total average flow, given an estimation of
catchment average rainfall from GIS analysis as above. Importantly, this
estimated reduction in dependable flow can be attributed to both the use of
a local pan evaporation coefficient of 1.06 and a maximum reservoir surface
area of (estimated) 42 sq. miles.
It is also noted that Figure 13 suggests that average rainfall is typically higher
over the reservoir location than over the whole Amaila Falls site basin,
although this spatial variation has been calculated to have a negligible impact
(< 0.5 %) on estimated total inflow.
It is important to note the difficulties in attempting to measure evaporation
using water budget related instruments. Brutsaert (1982) highlights some of
the difficulties in relating evaporation in nature to that measured by
evaporation pans. Recourse is usually made to the use of pan coefficients
to relate pan evaporation to lake evaporation. Typical values vary from 0.7
for a Class-A pan (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24) to
approaching unity for the 20 m
2
basin, yet these coefficients vary greatly
according to exposure and climatic conditions.
Draft Report


Table 13: Amaila Falls water balance (calculations after Montreal Engineering Company Limited, 1976)
Kaieteur Falls Amaila Falls Comments
Annual average flow
(cusecs)
7,370 1,916 - as given in A9-49 (1950-1975) and derived from transposition factor
Transposition factor 0.26 - as given in A11-18
A, Catchment area
(sq. miles)
1,220 250 - as given in A9-49 and A11-17
P
1
, Annual streamflow
(inches)
82 104
P, Annual average rainfall
(inches)
116 147
- as derived from A3-3 and A11-1 and geo-rectification and subsequent analysis. (Inferred from transpostion
factor and catchment areas, AF = 1.27.KF. A3-4 suggets 162 at Kaieteur Falls).
r, Runoff coefficient 0.71 0.71 - derived from P
1
and P
E
a
, Actual
evaporation(inches)
34 43 - derived from P and r
E
P
, Pan evaporation
(inches)
60 60 - as given for Kaieteur Falls in A3-9 (1959-1975)
, Pan evaporation
coefficient
1.06 1.06 - as given in A3-11 as per local comparisons
E
L
, Reservoir evaporation
(inches)
64 64 - derived from E
P
and
y, Fraction of basin flooded 0.16 - as derived from A11-1 and GIS digitisation
Annual average inflow
(cusecs)
1,610 - derived from r, P, 1-y and A
Annual average net direct
rainfall (inches)
83 - derived from P and E
L
Total inflow to Amaila Falls
site (cusecs)
1,855 - drived from inflow and net direct rainfall

3.4.2 Volume 4, Appendix 9, River Basin Inventory ( 2.4, pp. A9-47 A9-52)
Vol. 4 App. 9 describes the general topography of the Potaro and
Kuribrong Basins, noting similar characteristics shared by the two basins.
It is noted that in early 1975, gold and diamond porknockers (prospectors)
were working alluvial deposits approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Kaieteur
Falls. The bedrock of the basin is described as being Proterozoic Roraima
group sediments characterised by crevices and surface cracks near the
escarpment (upon which Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls are located).
A single raingauge in the basin at Kaieteur Falls is identified (averaging 160
inches a year over a recorded 15 year period).
Two river gauging stations in the Potaro Basin are identified at Kaietuer
Falls and further downstream at Tumatumari Falls. Their respective
catchment areas , record length and mean annual flow are noted as 1,220
and 2,730 sq. miles, 25 and 22 years, and 6.04 and 6.85 cusecs / sq. mile. It
is noted that the flow record at Tumatumari Falls is subject to backwater
effects and is therefore not consider as accurate as the flow record at
Kaieteur Falls (for use in estimating inflows at the Amaila Falls site).
Unknown uncertainty both in the stage discharge relationship (particularly
in 1975 during the period of spot flow measurements at the Amaila Falls site
see 3.4.3) as a result of porknocker activity and in the estimation of
catchment area as a result of the presence of crevices and surface cracks
should be considered when assessing the overall uncertainty in the
estimation of inflows at the Amaila Falls site.
Draft Report


3.4.3 Volume 5, Appendix 11, Pre-feasibility Site Studies, Part 1. Amaila Project
( 1.5, pp. A11-17 A11-20)
Vol. 5 App. 11 describes the method used during pre-feasibility for deriving
inflows into the Amaila Falls site based on the monthly flow record at
Kaieteur Falls, due to the similarity of terrain and climate of the Kuribrong
and Potaro Basins. The contributing catchment area was planimetered
from 1:50,000 scale topographic maps to be 250 sq. miles and the resultant
ratio of catchment areas adjusted for average annual precipitation believed
(Halcrow emphasis) to be higher on the Kuribrong watershed such that a
monthly flow transposition factor of 0.26 was estimated.
Unknown uncertainty in both the estimation of catchment area of the
Kuribrong and Potaro Basins upstream the respective subject locations and
in the estimation of the average annual precipitation adjustment can be
associated with this transposition factor.
A comparison of 22 spot flow measurements taken on the Kuribrong River
downstream of Amaila Falls (June 25
th
July 7
th
1975) with flows derived
from recorded level on the Potaro River upstream Kaieteur Falls is also
presented, providing an average flow ratio of 0.30. The results of the spot
flow measurement comparison were used to give some confidence in the
derived flows for the Amaila site, but it was noted are no substitute for
actual records [at the Amaila Falls site] which should be instituted.
The results of the spot flow measurement analysis, together with modelled
flows using a simple linear regression with zero intercept and model
residuals, are shown in Table 14 and Figure 15.
Table 14: Spot flow measurement analysis (June July 1975 data)
Date Time
Discharge
AF
(cusecs)
Discharge
KF
(cusecs)
Tabulated Ratio
(
AM
/
KF
)
Calculated Ratio
(
AM
/
KF
)
Difference in
calculated ratio
Estimated discharge
AF
(cusecs)
Deviation
(%)
25/06/1975 10:00 5,550 16,200 0.34 0.34 0.00 4,758 17%
25/06/1975 14:40 5,260 16,600 0.32 0.32 0.00 4,875 8%
27/06/1975 08:20 4,970 17,000 0.26 0.29 -0.03 4,993 0%
27/06/1975 13:55 5,330 17,200 0.28 0.31 -0.03 5,052 6%
28/06/1975 07:30 5,190 19,500 0.27 0.27 0.00 5,727 -9%
28/06/1975 14:40 4,960 19,600 0.25 0.25 0.00 5,757 -14%
29/06/1975 07:58 4,780 20,100 0.24 0.24 0.00 5,903 -19%
30/06/1975 08:05 4,480 18,700 0.24 0.24 0.00 5,492 -18%
30/06/1975 17:25 4,510 18,400 0.25 0.25 0.00 5,404 -17%
01/07/1975 08:15 7,220 22,100 0.33 0.33 0.00 6,491 11%
01/07/1975 16:30 6,970 23,200 0.30 0.30 0.00 6,814 2%
02/07/1975 08:00 7,160 22,300 0.32 0.32 0.00 6,550 9%
02/07/1975 15:10 7,190 22,100 0.33 0.33 0.00 6,491 11%
03/07/1975 08:05 6,670 21,300 0.31 0.31 0.00 6,256 7%
03/07/1975 17:00 6,350 20,700 0.31 0.31 0.00 6,080 4%
04/07/1975 08:28 5,140 19,700 0.26 0.26 0.00 5,786 -11%
04/07/1975 15:50 4,820 19,100 0.25 0.25 0.00 5,610 -14%
05/07/1975 08:50 4,120 15,900 0.26 0.26 0.00 4,670 -12%
06/07/1975 08:45 4,690 12,100 0.39 0.39 0.00 3,554 32%
06/07/1975 16:45 5,010 12,500 0.40 0.40 0.00 3,671 36%
07/07/1975 08:05 4,330 13,800 0.31 0.31 0.00 4,053 7%
07/07/1975 13:000 4,000 13,800 0.29 0.29 0.00 4,053 -1%
Mean 5,395 18,268 0.30 0.30 0.00 5,365 2%
Median 5,075 18,900 0.30 0.30 0.00 5,551 3%
Min 4,000 12,100 0.24 0.24 -0.03 3,554 -19%
Max 7,220 23,200 0.40 0.40 0.00 6,814 36%

Draft Report


The simple linear regression shown in Figure 15 (a) illustrates both close
agreement with the calculation of the average flow ratio (0.2937 vis--vis
0.3) and also the degree of deviation from the average for each spot flow
measurement, as a function of flow magnitude. The linear regression model
residuals together with the 0.26 transposition factor model residuals are
shown in Figure 15 (b) suggesting a relatively high degree of uncertainty in
both models residuals demonstrate a curvilinear relationship, highly
dependent on the two (2) spot flow measurement estimates of July 6
th
.
Figure 15: Spot flow measurement analysis (June 1975 July 1975 data)
(a) Simple linear regression; zero intercept
Amaila Falls / Kaieteur Falls spot flow measurement analysis (June - July 1975)
y = 0.2937x
R
2
= 0.5181
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000
Kaieteur Falls (cusecs)
A
m
a
i
l
a

F
a
l
l
s

(
c
u
s
e
c
s
)

(b) Simple linear regression model residuals
Amaila Falls / Kaieteur Falls spot flow measurement analysis (June - July 1975)
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000
Kaieteur Falls (cusecs)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

(
%
)
Linear regression model residuals 0.26 transposition factor residuals

It should be noted that the spot flow measurements at the Amaila Falls site
were undertaken during a period when the flows at Kaieteur Falls were
estimated as between 12,100 cusecs and 23,200 cusecs. Given the curvilinear
Draft Report


nature of model residuals, particular care should be given to extrapolating a
simple linear relationship.
Additional uncertainties in the spot flow measurements, recorded stage at
Kaieteur Falls and the stage-discharge relationship at Kaieteur Falls
notwithstanding, assuming a simple linear regression model transposition
factor of 0.2937, a true estimate of flow at Amaila Falls may be within
approximately +36 / -19 % of the modelled estimate. Given a transposition
factor of 0.26, this uncertainty increases to +54 / -9 %, and results in an
apparent bias of 15 % to 17 %.
With particular reference to the study requirements of assessing uncertainty
in the Amaila Falls inflow record, flow ratios have been calculated for each
decile based on the data presented in Table 14. These are shown in Table
15.
Table 15: Kaieteur Falls Amaila Falls flow ratio uncertainty (hydrometric data, 1975)
Percentile 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Ratio 0.246 0.254 0.262 0.291 0.304 0.312 0.316 0.324 0.341

Draft Report


4 Review of Relevant Studies
The review of relevant studies is carried out to verify whether the whether
the following factors/coefficients have been correctly considered in the
existing energy yield assessment and generation/dispatching model:
hydraulic head-losses from intake through penstock to turbine;
turbine-generator efficiency factors for different operating conditions
and unit deterioration due to wear;
the scheduled and unscheduled outages of the turbine-generator units
the power losses in the transmission line.
The review on the existing sedimentation control plan is also undertaken to
identify the likely impact on both reservoir storage and turbine efficiency
and deterioration.

4.1 Review of Hydraulic Headloss
It is understood that a constant of 15 m was used as an estimated headloss
in the water conveyance system according to the 2001 Feasibility Study
Report (Ref 2).
We have carried out a detailed analysis to estimate the anticipated hydraulic
headloss in the water conveyance system starting from the headrace tunnel
to power shaft and tunnel based on the MWH drawings dated in March
2011(Ref 14). Losses were calculated up to the main inlet valve only. Losses
through the Francis turbine are considered to be included in the turbine
efficiencies.
The layout of the conduits comprise an intake structure consisting of twin
screened rectangular shaped section tunnels which then combine into a
single D shaped tunnel section head race tunnel approximately 1600m long
constructed as a drill and blast tunnel which changes to a circular concrete
lined vertical power shaft section (approximately 315 m high) which then
discharges into the power tunnel (approximately 1200 m long) which is
initially concrete lined before changing to a steel lined section. A double
bifurcation then brings flows into the powerhouse.
An initial review of the headloss calculation indicated that around 75% of
the losses at rated full flow (50.2 m
3
/s) are due to friction losses in the water
conveyance system, with other losses such as bends and transitions making
the rest up. The resulted headloss and discharge relationship can be
summarised as shown in Figure 16.

Draft Report


Figure 16: Headloss vs discharge relationship
Amaila Falls Hydropower Project Headloss vs discharge curve
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Discharge Q (m
3
/s)
H
e
a
d
l
o
s
s

(
m
)

It is evidence that a constant headloss of 15 m is an adequate estimate for
the hydraulic headlosse in the water conveyance system and will resulted in
over-estimation in power output when the flow is less than 40 m3/s or
under-estimation when the flow is less than 40 m3/s as shown in Figure 16.
For example, for the design flow at 50.2 m
3
/s, our estimated headloss is
about 22 m which is 7 m higher that the assumed valve of 15 m. This could
result in over-estimate of energy yields by up to 2%.
4.2 Other Factors that Affect Energy Yield Estimation
4.2.1 Efficiency of Francis Turbine and Generator
According to the 2001 Feasibility Study Report (Ref 2), it is understood that
constant rates of 90% and 97.5% were used for turbine and generator
efficiencies, respectively.
Our judgement is that although they are acceptable for the purposes of
estimating energy yield, they could result in over-estimation in power output
when the turbine is operated below its rated flow. Therefore, we adopted a
set of variable efficiency curves for the Francis turbine and generator based
on available information for the similar features for our energy yield
assessments as shown in Figure 17:
Draft Report


Figure 17: Turbine and generator efficiency curves
Turbine and Generator Efficiency Curves
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 110% 130%
Output
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Generator
Turbine
Combined

4.2.2 Plant Outages
According to the existing energy assessment reports, it is assumed that the
power plant will operate with 96% availability (a level of 4% for planned
and forced outages). Our judgement is that this is acceptable.
4.2.3 Auxiliary Power Uses and Transformer Loss
a power loss rate of 0.5% is used for both transformer and at site use, which
are considered reasonable. However, we note that the power plant includes
a Pelton-type hydro-turbine generator which should produce enough energy
for plant auxiliary uses.
4.2.4 Transmission loss
a loss rate of 2% was used for transmission loss. However, from the recent
MWH written answers to our queries (Ref 12), it is understood that
transmission line losses are estimated at 3.9% if two lines are operating and
6.7% if one line is operating.
Our judgement is that these rates are considered as low for such a long
distance transmission line bearing in mind the fact that transmission and
distribution losses in Guyana were estimated at 44%
2
in April 2003.

2
Government of Guyana Strategy for Sustaining the Guyana Power & Light, Inc, March 2007
Draft Report


4.3 Power Plant Output
We have estimated the plant power outputs from the turbine-generator
units taking account of variations in hydraulic headlosses and tailwater levels
for varying discharges of 1, 2, 3 and 4 turbines running using typical turbine
and generator efficiencies and the results are summarised as shown in Figure
18.
It indicated that at the rated design flow of 50.2 (4x12.6 m
3
/s) the generator
achieves approximately 153.5 MW output which is about 7% lower than the
quoted output of 165MW. However it appears that this quoted output is a
gross output and that either the turbine-generator efficiency or the headloss
is not properly considered. To achieve the required output at 165 MW it
would require a discharge at an estimated 56 m
3
/s while the reservoir is at
FSL.
Figure 18: Power output from the turbine-generator unit
Amaila Falls Hydropower
Discharge vs Power Generation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 12.6 25.2 37.8 50.4 63
Discharge Q (m
3
/s)
O
u
t
p
u
t

(
M
W
)
1Turbine
2 Turbines
3 Turbines
4 Turbines

4.4 Review of Sedimentation Control Plan and Management
Strategy
4.4.1 Sediment loads and siltation rates
There are no reliable sediment measurements for assessing long term
siltation of the proposed reservoir. Inconsistent sediment yield
measurements in the Mazaruni and Kamarang rivers in the 1960s and
1970s (Ref 2 and Ref 3) are inadmissible for estimating depletion of
reservoir storage due to sedimentation.
Assuming a stable and good watershed management plan in place, Ref 2
estimated the sediment yield to be 0.25 mm per year (mm/yr) based on an
Draft Report


assumption that the physical condition of the catchment here is very similar
to the upper part of the Ro Caroni basin in Venezuela, the basin adjacent to
the Kuribrong River. This is equivalent to a mean annual sediment inflow of
about 0.165 million m
3
.
Recent attempts to calculate sedimentation rates from the Amaila and
Kuribong rivers have been based on field measurements from May 2010
(Ref 9). Whilst the sampling methodology appears robust, only spot
measurements were obtained. Ideally, continuous sediment sampling over a
complete annual hydrological cycle to capture any seasonal changes would
provide better estimate of sediment yield. The result presented in Table
4.1.1.7.b (Ref 9) is also questionable as it appears that bed load estimate is
significantly more than that of the suspended load. Bedload in rivers is
normally only a fraction (typically 15-20%) of the suspended load. It is also
unclear if the total load or only the suspended load has been used to
estimate the long term siltation in this reservoir.
We consider that the trap efficiency (TE) of 75%used in the estimation of
the sedimentation rate is acceptable (Ref 11). The mean annual
sedimentation rate for this Project has been estimated to be 0.162 million
m
3
. This coincidentally compares well with the 0.165 million m
3
inflows
given in Ref 2, based on work entirely from a neighbouring catchment in
Venezuela. The total sediment accumulation over 50 years based on annual
sedimentation rate of 0.155 million m
3
/yr has been estimated to be 7.7
million m
3
, representing storage loss of just under 6% of the overall
reservoir capacity.
No further data or sedimentation details are available to validate these
estimates and will be taken as the accepted siltation rate of the proposed
reservoir for the review of sediment management plan and impact on power
generation and silt abrasion on the turbines.
4.4.2 Review of existing sediment plan and management strategy
In general there is no reservoir sedimentation mitigation plan besides a
broad proposal that effort should be made to minimise erosion from
overland flows in the watershed area. Whilst watershed management can be
effective, it is normally difficult to implement especially in the long term
unless the watershed is strictly protected and designated as non-
development area. In any circumstances watershed management should not
be regarded as the only strategy in place to actively manage siltation in a
reservoir.
It has been noted that there is no provision for flushing outlets at the dam
and the low level outlet is designed to meet compensatory flow estimated at
1m
3
/s which is inadequate for reservoir flushing or density current venting
operations. There is therefore no other means of removing sediment from
this reservoir once sediment enters and settles in the reservoir besides
dredging which is more than often the least economical way to restore the
storage capacity.
It is unclear from the above reports if the current proposed reservoir gross
storage includes any provision for long term loss due to siltation. It is
assumed here that an allowance for dead storage has been made. Whilst the
dead storage approach is a common industry practice to manage
sedimentation in reservoir, it has been shown in recent advances that this
approach may not be entirely adequate for long term mitigation strategy
Draft Report


especially in a hydropower scheme. Sediment do not build up evenly along a
horizontal plane, therefore some live storage which would be useful for
drawoff is usually lost long before the dead storage, located at the deepest
region of the reservoir is filled.
It may be likely that sediment will settle in the upper region of the reservoir
hence blockage of intake will not be an issue (Ref 2) as coarser and heavier
sediment usually deposit in the upper region, forming a backwater delta
which gradually advances towards the dam. Only lighter and fine sediment
tends to be deposited in the deeper area of the reservoir near the dam.
However insufficient information is available to confirm if the silting up of
the backwater region would not affect the live storage of the proposed
scheme required for drawoff to generate power.
The actual process of sediment deposition is unique to every reservoir,
ideally sediment modelling to confirm sediment distribution is required to
demonstrate that sedimentation will not affect drawoff requirement for
power generation However as there is no sediment data available, sediment
distribution exercise in the reservoir cannot be carried out to confirm if this
would be a problem at this scheme.
4.4.3 Impact on turbines and power generation
Four Francis type turbines have been proposed to generate power at the
power house. As there is no qualitative sediment data available for this
review, it is impossible to comment on the potential abrasion of the
proposed turbines.
It is noted that there is no provision for desilting basin or chamber at the
drawoff inlet but this is not unreasonable given the expectation that
operational problem due to blockage of intake is minimal as the estimated
sediment yield coming into the reservoir is considered to be low.
The intake structure however is only about 7 m above the river bed level
(estimated as 410m asml from design drawing C-9). Assuming that sediment
is carried into the deeper region of the reservoir in the long term, the
estimated accumulation of 7.7 million m3(over 50 years) would result in a
bed level of around 420.5 m asml near the dam ( refer to stagestorage table
in Ref 11). This level exceeds the proposed intake invert level of 417 m asml
by approximately 3m. The reduction in storage capacity as the reservoir is
gradually silted up over time meant there will be some risk of sediment
entering the drawoff intake well before sediment build up to this level.
However given the nature that incoming sediment yield is low and that
sediment build up is not expected to reach the intake for decades (estimated
50 years) it is likely that only fines would enters the drawoff intake under
normal operating conditions thus turbine performance should not be
adversely affected in the early years.
In any circumstance it is anticipated that each of the four turbine runners
(and associated equipment prone to sediment wear) should be coated to
protect against silt damage as per manufacturers recommendation and
provision is made for rapid runner removal and repair at the site.
Draft Report


5 Energy Yield and Power Output
Assessments
We have built a bespoke energy yield simulation model for the Amaila Falls
hydropower facility, including the reservoir, power plant taking into account
the following factors:
Net evaporation loss on the reservoir surface
Release of environmental compensation flow at the dam (1 m
3
/s)
Variations in hydraulic headloss in the conveyance system and tailwater
levels for different discharges
The combined efficiency of the turbine and generator
Please note that we use Energy Yield to describe the power obtained at
the generator terminals, which is the net power generated at the power plant
by taking account of the hydraulic headloss, turbine and generator
efficiencies. The Power output is the energy yield subtracting power
losses due to generating unit availability and transformer losses.

5.1 Basic Data and Assumptions
5.1.1 Baseline Streamflows
As discussed in Section 3, we concluded that, given available data, a
transposition factor of 0.3 applied to the monthly flow data at Kaieteur Falls
is suitable for estimating baseline monthly flows upstream of Amaila Falls.
Therefore, the baseline monthly streamflows used in energy yield
assessments are the same streamflow series as used in the Feasibility Study
and the period of hydrologic record used is from 1950 to 1990 (41 years of
monthly streamflows data) and are subject to the uncertainties as described
in Section 3 of this report.
5.1.2 Reservoir Operating Policy
According to the Amaila Falls Hydropower ESIA Report, the Amaila Falls
reservoir has a minimum operation level (MOL) at 425.0 m (amsl) and a full
supply level (FSL) at 431.55 m (amsl). The corresponding storages are
34.303 million m
3
and 135.599 million m
3
for MOL and SFL, respectively.
Therefore, the live storage for power production is about 101.3 million m
3
.
For the monthly reservoir operations, the energy generated from the plant is
simulated month by month chronologically according to an operating policy
as follows:
In wet months, the reservoir is filled or kept full and the rated flow (at 50.4
m
3
/s) is discharged to generate energy. Any extra flow is either spilled or (if
possible) stored in the reservoir subject to the storage limit at FSL.
In dry months, the maximum possible flow will be discharged by taking
account of the inflow, environmental compensation flows, net evaporation
loss, etc and subject to the ending storage limit at MOL. Therefore the net
Draft Report


inflow is supplemented by drawing water from storage in order to maximize
power generation until the MOL is reach when the plant takes the net
inflow only.
The similar operation strategy will also apply to the daily reservoir operation
simulations.
5.2 Energy Yields and Plant Output Assessments
5.2.1 Energy Yield Assessments for Baseline Steamflows
We have estimated the energy yields for the entire baseline streamflows
series of 41 years
Assuming that all units generate full capacity without any restrictions when
possible, the simulated monthly and annual energy yields for the baseline
flows of 41 years is show in Figure 19 and Figure 20 respectively.
Figure 19: Monthly energy yields
Monthly Energy Yields
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
5
0
5
2
5
4
5
6
5
8
6
0
6
2
6
4
6
6
6
8
7
0
7
2
7
4
7
6
7
8
8
0
8
2
8
4
8
6
8
8
9
0
G
W
h

Draft Report


Figure 20: Annual energy yields
Annual Energy Yields
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1
9
5
0
1
9
5
2
1
9
5
4
1
9
5
6
1
9
5
8
1
9
6
0
1
9
6
2
1
9
6
4
1
9
6
6
1
9
6
8
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
Year
G
W
h

It is noted that the monthly powers generated exhibit variations as shown in
Figure 21.
Figure 21: Monthly min, average and max power generated at the power plant
Monthly Minimum, average and maximum energy yields
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
G
W
h
Minimum
Average
Maximum

Draft Report


5.2.2 Power Output Assessment for Baseline Streamflows
If a combined loss rate of 4.5% is assumed for both the machine outages
and transformer loss, the energy outputs for the power plant are listed in
Table 16.
Table 16: Estimated plant energy outputs for baseline flows

Energy
Yield
Energy losses (Machine outage
and transformer loss 4.5%)
Energy Output
at station
Minimum (GWh) 884 40 844
Average (GWh) 1141 51 1090
Maximum(GWh) 1343 60 1283

The average annual energy output from the plant is estimated as 1090GWh.

5.3 Energy Yield Assessments for a Dry Year
In order to assess the impact of the monthly and daily streamflows on the
energy yield of the project, we have carried out the energy yield simulations
based on both monthly and daily streamflows for a dry year which is
defined in this study as the year with 90% dependable flow. On the basis of
annual flow-duration curve, 1962 is selected as a dry year (90%
dependable).
The estimated annual energy yields for the monthly and daily simulation are
994.8 GWh and 952.8 GWh, respectively as shown in Figure 22. This
indicated that using monthly average flows for energy yield assessment
could result in an over estimate of energy yield by up to 4.2% as compared
with that using daily flows.
Figure 23 depicts the available discharges for power generation under daily
and monthly operation scenarios as compared with daily inflow to reservoir.
The main reason behind is that the reservoir has a relatively small live
storage (which is 101.3 million m
3
) which could only store enough water for
supplying 3 units for up to one month and 4 units for up 23 days.
Draft Report


Figure 22: Estimated Energy Yield (90% dependable flows)
Energy Yields for Monthly and Daily Simulated Operations
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
01/ 01/ 1962 01/ 02/ 196 01/ 03/ 196 01/ 04/ 196 01/ 05/ 1962 01/ 06/ 196 01/ 07/ 1962 01/ 08/ 196 01/ 09/ 196 01/ 10/ 1962 01/ 11/ 1962 01/ 12/ 1962
K
W
h
Energy Yields based on monthly flows
Energy Yields based on daily flows

Figure 23: Available discharge (90% dependable flows)
Inflows, Monthly and Daily Discharges for Power Production
0
50
100
150
200
250
1/1/62 1/2/62 1/3/62 1/4/62 1/5/62 1/6/62 1/7/62 1/8/62 1/9/62 1/10/62 1/11/62 1/12/62
m
3
/
s
Inflows to Reservoir
Monthly Discharges for Power Generation
Daily Discharges for Power Generation

Draft Report


5.4 Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis has been carried out to assess the impact of reservoir
size on energy generated from the power plant. The analysis is based on the
baseline monthly streamflows of 42 years and the energy yield simulations
were run for two further reservoir sizes assuming the FSL at 434.0 m and
435.5, respectively.
The simulated average annual energy yields are listed in Table 17 and the
annual energy yields for the 41 years are shown in Figure 24.
Table 17: Estimated average annual energy yields for different reservoir sizes
Full Supply Level
FSL (m)
Live Storage Volume
(million m
3
)
Energy Yields
(GWh)
Changes in GWh
(%)
431.55 101.3 1141
434.0 169.3 1183 +3.7%
435.0 220.8 1218 +6.7%

Figure 24: Estimated annual energy yields for different reservoir sizes
Annaual Energy Yields for Different FSLs
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
1200.00
1300.00
1400.00
1
9
5
0
1
9
5
1
1
9
5
2
1
9
5
3
1
9
5
4
1
9
5
5
1
9
5
6
1
9
5
7
1
9
5
8
1
9
5
9
1
9
6
0
1
9
6
1
1
9
6
2
1
9
6
3
1
9
6
4
1
9
6
5
1
9
6
6
1
9
6
7
1
9
6
8
1
9
6
9
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
5
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
8
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
8
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
0
Month
G
W
h
FSL=431.55m
FSL=434.0m
FSL=435.5m

The simulation results indicate that as compared with the existing design of
FSL at 431.55m the average annual energy yield would increase by up to
3.75% and 6.7% if the FSL was increased to 434 m and 435.5 m,
respectively, representing an increase of storage volume by some 67% and
118%, respectively. The reason is that the energy yield of the power plant is
constrained by both the design flow rate (12.6 m
3
/s) and the regulation
capacity of the reservoir.
Draft Report


5.5 Uncertainty Analysis
5.5.1 Uncertainties in Derived Streamflows
The review of existing hydrological results and studies has highlighted
uncertainty in various components of the hydrological analysis undertaken
to date in identifying the available water for use in Amaila Falls power
generation studies. Uncertainties in the following areas have been identified:
Uncertainty in establishing a transposition factor derived from
catchment areas and catchment rainfall due to: uncertainty in the
estimation of catchment areas (watershed definition, possible inter-
basin transfers and the presence of crevices and surface cracks), and;
uncertainty in the estimation of average rainfall in the two catchments
(based on observations in 1971 from a sparse hydrometric network,
supplemented by the effect of known orographic features).
Uncertainty in establishing a transposition factor based on estimated
flow at Kaieteur Falls and spot flow measurements downstream of
Amaila Falls undertaken in June-July 1975.
Uncertainty in establishing a transposition factor based on estimated
flow at Kaieteur Falls and spot flow measurements downstream of
Amaila Falls undertaken in June-August 2001, including; uncertainty in
establishing a temporary stage-discharge relationship downstream of
Amaila Falls due to uncertainty in velocity measurements and
uncertainty in measuring stage, and; uncertainty in deriving a flow
record downstream of Amaila Falls due to rating extrapolation at low
and high flows.
Uncertainty in the consistency of the stage-discharge relationship at
Kaieteur Falls, including possible shifts in rating control and frequency
of recent spot flow measurements.
Uncertainty in the estimation of a 41-year flow record due to missing
data.
Uncertainty in the estimation of a consistent 41-year flow record (trend
and cyclic features).
Uncertainty in net evaporation from an Amaila Falls reservoir due to
uncertainty in both direct rainfall and evaporation.
Uncertainty in the temporal and seasonal stability of rainfall patterns in
the Amaila Falls catchment.
It is recognised that the overall uncertainty in the use of a transposition
factor is a complex function of many contributing factors. From the
perspective of the current study requirements, the overall uncertainty has
been reduced to what are considered the primary components of:
Uncertainty in the daily flow ratios between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila
Falls based on hydrometric measurements undertaken in 1975.
Uncertainty in the 3 day M.A. and 31 day M.A. flow ratios between
Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls based on hydrometric measurements
undertaken in 2001.
Draft Report


Uncertainty in the Kaieteur Falls rating based on the recorded rating
table and spot flow measurements undertaken between June 1949 and
May 1989.
Uncertainty in the Amaila Falls rating based on an updated logarithmic
rating curve and spot flow measurements undertaken in June July
1975.
A simplified assessment of uncertainty in the derivation of a simple constant
transposition factor applied to a monthly flow record has been undertaken
based on the application of a dominant factor of uncertainty in Kaieteur
Falls / Amaila Falls flow ratios derived from hydrometric measurements
undertaken in 2001. This effectively assumes that all other sources of
uncertainty are subsumed in the quantification of uncertainty of a 31 day
moving average flow ratio.
This simplified assessment does not take into account any possible
variations in flow ratio between the two sites that may be associated with
the magnitude of flow, seasons or longer term consistency. Although the
analysis undertaken suggests that such factors may be important, it is
considered that insufficient data is available to make quantified assessments
in these areas.
As such, derived from use of a cumulative distribution function, the
resultant uncertainty in a simple transposition factor is summarised in Table
18.
Table 18: Summary of uncertainty in key hydrological components
Percentile (%) 31 day M.A. flow ratios (2001)
10 0.276
20 0.292
30 0.297
40 0.303
50 0.383
60 0.396
70 0.421
80 0.423
90 0.439

It is notable that the median transposition factor estimate of 0.383 is
somewhat higher than the accepted baseline transposition factor estimate of
0.300 suggesting that the baseline estimate is a precautionary estimate.
5.5.2 Uncertainties of energy yield
The uncertainty analysis of energy yield is carried out by deriving the Amaila
Falls monthly streamflows using different transposition factors as identified
in Table 18. The energy yields can be summarised in Table 19.

Draft Report


Table 19: Energy yield uncertainty
Percentile
Transposition
factors
Energy Yield
(GWh/year)
Energy Output at
Station (GWh/year)
10% 0.276 1095 1046
20% 0.292 1118 1068
30% 0.297 1125 1074
40% 0.303 1133 1082
50% 0.383 1174 1121
60% 0.396 1176 1123
70% 0.421 1180 1127
80% 0.423 1180 1127
90% 0.439 1182 1129

Table 19 suggests an average energy yield of 1174 GWh. This compares
with the baseline assessment of average energy yield of 1141 GWh (see
Table 16).
Considering the estimated energy output at the station and assuming a 4.5%
energy loss due to machine outage and transformer losses, adopting an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approach to
communicating levels of confidence in model results, we can have a high
level of confidence that the average energy output is between 1046 GWh
and 1129 GWh..

5.6 Assessment of climate impacts on hydropower production
A review of the potential impacts of climate change has been undertaken in
order to identify whether any potential climate change impact can be
quantified and used for developing an alternative estimate of basin
hydrology and of the associated dispatching scenarios. As such, a review of
the following studies has been undertaken:
The Assessment of the Risk of Amazon Dieback report (World Bank,
February 2010).
National Climate Committee and National Resources and Environment
Advisory Committee (Guyana: Initial National Communication in
response to its commitments to the UNFCCC, 2002).
Effects of 21
st
century climate change on the Amazon Rain Forest
(Cook, K and Vizy. E, 2007), Journal of Climate, Vol. 21 pp.542-560.
UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles, University of Oxford.
Future of climate in South America in the late 21
st
century:
Intercomparison of scenarios from three regional climate models
(Marengo, J et al, 2009), Climate Dynamics.
Most of the climate change studies have been undertaken using GCMs as
there has been little research done with downscaling techniques, particularly
for Guyana and the Amaila Falls region. However, it is notable that the
majority of studies predict a general decrease in both annual and seasonal
mean precipitation.
Draft Report


With reference to IPCC emissions scenarios, indicative results, presented by
the UNDP country profile study, with reference to a 1971-2000 baseline,
rainfall may on average decrease for all modelled scenarios as per the values
shown in Table 20.
Table 20: Indicative climate change related decreases in rainfall median values
SRES
scenario
Period Annual Nov-
Jan
Feb-
Apr
May-
Jul
Aug-
Oct
A2 -1.5% -1.6% -0.7% -0.6% -1.8%
A1B -1.4% -1.7% -0.1% -0.3% -2.1%
B1
2021-
2050
-0.6% -0.8% -0.6% -0.6% -1.0%
A2 -2.9% -2.4% -0.9% -2.2% -3.0%
A1B -2.9% -2.8% -1.1% -2.4% -3.6%
B1
2051-
2080
-1.8% -1.4% -0.7% -0.8% -1.4%

It is notable that the SRES scenario A2 is at the higher end of modelled
emission scenarios, A1B is a mid-line scenario and B1 is a low emissions
scenario. Both the scenarios A2 and A1B predict similar decreases in rainfall
both for the period 2021-2050 (-1.4% to -1.5%) and 2051-2080 (-2.9%),
whereas scenario B1 predicts less of a decrease in rainfall (-0.6% and -1.8%
for 2021-2050 and 2051-2080 respectively).
Further details of each of the reviewed studies is summarised in the
following sections.
5.6.1 The Assessment of the Risk of Amazon Dieback report (World Bank,
February 2010).
The World Bank report presents the difficulties of predicting future rainfall
over the region, and reviews the outputs of 24 Global Circulation Models
(GCM) used by the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change) from the
perspective of the ability to simulate current rainfall. 24 climate models
results were available for the study. These models were included in the
Couple Model Intercomparison Project 3 carried out by the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (4-AR). It is notable that some of the 24 GCMs predict
an increase in rainfall over the region and others predict a decrease.
The report presents five study objectives of which modelling future climate
and assessing the impact of climate on rainfall are of direct relevance to the
Amaila Falls hydrology review.
The 4-AR used 24 GCMs to predict future climate under various scenarios.
Many of these models use a very coarse resolution (100-400 km) and as such
provide only a broad scale assessment of climate. The study presents the
results of a 20km 180km GCM developed by Japan which makes use of a
supercomputer called the Earth Simulator. Modelled seasonal mean
precipitation is compared to observed precipitation and is reported as being
able to reproduce baseline (1979 to 2003) precipitation distributions quite
well. Predicted changes in precipitation show an increase in rainfall in
Northwest Amazonia and a decrease elsewhere in the region. However, the
reported changes in precipitation are not quantified.
Draft Report


5.6.2 National Climate Committee and National Resources and Environment
Advisory Committee (Guyana: Initial National Communication in response
to its commitments to the UNFCCC, 2002).
In the Initial National Communication of Guyana two GCMs were applied
to forecast the future changes in the countrys climate: the Canadian Climate
Centre (CGCM-1), and the Hadley Centre (HadCM2Gsal) from the
SCENGEN scenario within the MAGIC (Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change) model.
The CGCM-1 model results were available for three time slices: 1945 1995
(present); 2020 2040 (2 x CO2); and 2080 2100 (3 x CO2). These predict
a decrease of 10 mm per month for the 2020 2040 scenario. The decrease
is greatest in the countrys First Wet Season (May to July - 17 mm per
month) and in the Second Dry Season (August to October 12 mm per
month). For the 2080 2100 scenario, the predicted decrease in rainfall is
even higher. These anomalies represent a decrease between a 2.2% to a
6.8% with respect to the mean annual rainfall values.
The Hadley Centre Model results are available for two future time periods
corresponding to 2016 2045 (2 x CO2) and 2076 2105 (3 x CO2). The
changes in rainfall are expressed by %. The predictions of future rainfall
patterns are similar between the two models. Country average results show a
consistent decrease in rainfall although the Hadley projections show a more
severe decrease in rainfall especially for the May to July period and a slight
increases in rainfall in the February to April and the August to October
periods.
5.6.3 Effects of 21
st
century climate change on the Amazon Rain Forest (Cook, K
and Vizy. E, 2007), Journal of Climate, Vol. 21 pp.542-560.
Cook and Vizy present the result of a Regional Circulation Model (RCM)
constrained by a GCM. The RCM produces a more accurate representation
of the present South American climate, and provides regional information
needed for assessing the impacts. The paper states that most of the GCMs
produce rainfall rates for the Amazon Basin that are inaccurate and make
the results of such models inadequate for hydrological studies. The RCM
model (5
th
generation Pennsylvania State University National Centre for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model) results were compared with
baseline values
3
in order to observe which simulation (different emission
scenario) provides a better representation of the annual mean precipitation.
The model predicts a future precipitation decrease (2081-2100) of 4 mm per
day over a large portion of the Amazon Rainforest with decreases greater
than 10 mm per day in southeastern Brazil. Close to the equator, annual
mean rainfall is predicted to increase by more than 2 mm per day in the
central and eastern parts of the continent and along the eastern slopes of the
Andes. From the figures of the publication it is possible to observe that
around the study area there is a predicted decrease in future mean annual
precipitation. Detailed analysis of two regions east of the Amaila Falls
catchment suggests a 70 % reduction in rainfall (2081 - 2100) for the entire
second half of the calendar year.

3
From the CRU 1961 1990 and CCCMA twentieth-century GCM integration (1981 2000)
Draft Report


5.6.4 UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles, University of Oxford.
The UNDP climate change country profiles were constructed by a joint
effort between the National Communications Support Programs (NCSP)
and the UK Department for International Development and were
developed to address the climate change information gap in many
developing countries by making use of existing climate data. Data from the
Couple Model Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3) was collated by this
initiative and is presented in a synthesized way by making use of graphs and
maps with the most up-to-date multimodel projections. In itself, the
initiative does not present new results but rather provides a compilation of
existing model predictions. It only contains data from the GCMs in which
the IPCC 4
th
assessment report.
The report summarizes that mean annual rainfall from different models
show a wide range of predicted variation. Predictions vary between -34 % to
+20 % by 2090, although the median estimate of change for the 2060s is
negative. The largest change in total rainfall is predicted for May July (-
68 mm to +21mm per month). Relative changes show the largest variation
in August October and November January periods (-82 % to +68 %).
The country profile also concludes that model simulations show a wide
disagreement in predicted rainfall variation in the amplitude or frequency of
future El Nio events, contributing to uncertainty in climate predictions for
the region.
5.6.5 Future of climate in South America in the late 21
st
century: Intercomparison
of scenarios from three regional climate models (Marengo, J et al, 2009),
Climate Dynamics.
As part of the CREAS (Cenarios REgionalizados de Clima Futuro da
America do Sul) regional project, different regional climate change
projections have been made. This paper cover three RCMs nested within
one GCM to simulate climate for the present (1961-1990) and predictions
for 2071-2100 under the A2 IPCC emissions scenario. The results of the
study are focused on the intercomparison between models using the same
boundary conditions, allowing for an exploration of the uncertainty in
regional models.
Two of the three models show rainfall reductions in the future for most of
tropical South America east of the Andes. In contrast, the third model
shows a regional pattern with increased rainfall in the future over the
western Amazon extending to southern Brazil. According to the study, the
projected differences in precipitation among the three models could be a
partial consequence of an El Nio response of each model. The paper
analyses the annual cycle for Northern Brazil (closest analysis area to the
Amaila Falls catchment) showing that for the baseline scenario the three
models agree reasonably well with the observations but that intensity is in
general under estimated.
Draft Report


5.6.6 Climate impact on hydropower production
Based on the indicative decreases in rainfalls related to different climate
change scenarios as shown in Table 20 and assuming a linear response
between rainfalls and modelled flows in the Amaila Falls catchment, the
predicted reductions in river flows are used to model possible likely impact
on future energy yields.
The simulated energy yields as shown in Table 21 indicate that the impact of
climate could result in reduction in annual energy yield from 1.3 to 2% for
different scenarios when reductions in rainfall range from -0.6 to -2.9%.
Table 21: Climate impact on future energy yields
SRES
Scenario
Period Changes in
River flows
Annual Energy Yield
(GWh)
Change in
GWh (%)
Baseline
1141
A2
av. -1.5% 1124 -1.50%
A1B
av. -2.9% 1121 -1.78%
B1
2021-
2050
av. -1.4% 1124 -1.48%
A2
av. -2.9% 1119 -1.93%
A1B
av. -0.6% 1126 -1.29%
B1
2051-
2080
av. -1.8% 1125 -1.44%

Draft Report


6 Summary and Conclusions
6.1 Review of Hydrology Studies
We have reviewed hydrology reports produced during pre-feasibility (1976)
and feasibility (2001) stages of the Project and undertaken further analysis
based on data contained therein and data obtained from visits at the Hydro-
meteorological Service of the Ministry of Agriculture in Guyana (2011).
Various sources of uncertainty in the use of a monthly flow series from an
adjacent catchment (Potage River at Kaieteur Falls) and a simple
transposition factor for deriving monthly flows upstream of Amaila Falls
have been assessed. These include uncertainties in both hydrometric
measurements taken downstream of the Amaila Falls site in 1975 and 2001,
and uncertainties in the development of stage-discharge relationships at
both Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls.
We concluded that, given the available hydro-meteorological data, a
transposition factor of 0.3 applied to the monthly flow data at Kaieteur Falls
is suitable for estimating baseline monthly flows upstream of Amaila Falls,
subject to the following identified uncertainties:
Uncertainty in the daily flow ratios between Kaieteur Falls and Amaila
Falls based on hydrometric measurements undertaken in 1975.
Uncertainty in the 3 day M.A. and 31 day M.A. flow ratios between
Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls based on hydrometric measurements
undertaken in 2001.
Uncertainty in the Kaieteur Falls rating based on the recorded rating
table and spot flow measurements undertaken between June 1949 and
May 1989.
Uncertainty in the Amaila Falls rating based on an updated logarithmic
rating curve and spot flow measurements undertaken in June July
1975.
A simplified assessment of uncertainty in the derivation of a simple constant
transposition factor applied to a monthly flow record has been undertaken
based on the application of a dominant factor of uncertainty in Kaieteur
Falls / Amaila Falls flow ratios derived from hydrometric measurements
undertaken in 2001. This effectively assumes that all other sources of
uncertainty are subsumed in the quantification of uncertainty of a 31 day
moving average flow ratio.
This simplified assessment does not take into account any possible
variations in flow ratio between the two sites that may be associated with
the magnitude of flow, seasons or longer term consistency. Although the
analysis undertaken suggests that such factors may be important, it is
considered that insufficient data is available to make quantified assessments
in these areas.
Draft Report


6.2 Review of Relevant Studies
We have reviewed other factors/coefficients that affect power output
estimate of the plant and our judgements are as follows:
For hydraulic headloss in the water conduits, a constant value of 15 m
is not adequate and could result in an overestimate of power output by
up to 2% when all units run at full capacity;
Other factors, such as the turbine-generator efficiency, rate for
scheduled and unscheduled outages of the plant, are considered to be
reasonable;
The power loss rates are probably low for such a long distance
transmission line.
We have also undertake review on the estimate of siltation rate and existing
sediment plan and management strategy and assessed the sedimentation
impact on both reservoir storage and turbine. We concluded that
The most up to date estimate of incoming sediment yield is based on
field measurements from May 2010. Although the measurements are
spot samplings which are not ideal for estimating sediment yield, the
estimated yield of 0.162 million m3 is in general comparable with an
independent estimate of the sediment yield in an adjacent basin of
similar characteristics.
The estimated sediment yield cannot be checked as there is no sediment
data made provided for this review exercise. The values have been
accepted as accurate in order to review the management strategy and
impact on turbines affecting power generation for this scheme.
Whilst the overall sedimentation in the reservoir is considered low, the
long term distribution of sediment in the reservoir is unclear and this
may affect power generation if coarse sediment settles in the upper
backwater region which may be part of the live storage of the reservoir.
Sedimentation is not expected to affect power generation in the early
life of this reservoir, however long term sedimentation if reaches the
deeper region of the dam, bed level at the dam is anticipated to reach
drawoff intake level and therefore may affect drawoff requirement to
the powerhouse.
6.3 Energy Yield and Power Output Assessments
We have estimated the power output from the turbine-generator unit by
taking account of the hydraulic headlosses using typical turbine and
generator efficiencies; our estimate indicates that at the rated design flow of
50.2 m3/s the unit achieves approximately 153.5 MW output while the
reservoir is at full supply level, which is about 7% lower than the quoted
value of 165MW.
We have estimated the energy yield based on the baseline flows of 41 years
and obtained that:
an average annul energy yield at the generator terminals is estimated as
1141 GWh, with the minimum and maximum yields being 884 GWh
and 1343 GWh, respectively;
Draft Report


an average annual energy output from the power plant (at the
transformer terminals taking account of machine outages and
transformer loss) is estimated as 1090GWh;
an average annual power available at the distribution point (at Linda
and Georgetown) is estimated from 1017 GWh to 1047 GWh taking
account of transmission line losses;
for a dry year (90% dependable annual flows), the annual energy yield is
estimated at 994.8 GWh when the monthly average flows are used for
simulation. However, when daily flows are used for simulation the
annual energy yield estimate reduces to 952.8 GWh, indicating that
using monthly flows could overestimate the energy yield by up to 4.2%.
We have assessed the energy yield with different reservoir full storage levels
(FSL) and simulation results indicate that as compared to the existing
designed FSL at 431.55 m the average annual energy yield would increase by
up to 3.75% and 6.7% if the FSL was increased to 434 m and 435.5 m,
respectively.
We have undertaken uncertainty analysis of the energy yields with regard to
the transposition factor varying from 0.276 to 0.437. We can have a high
level of confidence that the average energy output is between 1046 GWh
and 1129 GWh considering machine outages and transformer losses.
A preliminary climate change impact analysis of relevant General Circulation
Model (GCM) and Regional Circulation Model (RCM) results for the
Project indicates that there is a wide variety of predictions of how rainfall
patterns may change in the future but suggests that there is a tendency for
models to predict a general decrease in rainfall in the area which would
typically cause a resultant reduction in river flows at the project site. Based
on indicative climate change related decreases in rainfalls, and assuming a
linear response between modelled rainfall and flows in the Amaila Falls
catchment, the predicted river flows are used to model possible likely impact
on future energy yields. The simulated energy yields indicate that the impact
of climate could result in reduction in annual energy yield from 1.3 to 2%
for different scenarios when reductions in rainfall range from -0.6 to -2.9%.
It should be noted that the analysis and assessments presented in this report
are subject to the accuracy and completeness of the background information
and data provided.
Draft Report


References
Ref 1. Kaehne Consulting Ltd, Review of Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Report,
June 2002.
Ref 2. Montgomery Watson Harza, Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Guyana Feasibility Study Report
Hydrology, December 2001
Ref 3. Montreal Engineering Company Limited, Hydroelectric Power Survey of Guyana Final Report,
April 1976.
Ref 4. Montgomery Watson Harza, Amaila Falls Hydro - Estimated Monthly Energy and Average
Power for a Range of Load Factors, 14 August 2009
Ref 5. Montgomery Watson Harza, Amaila Falls Hydro - Estimated Monthly Energy and Average
Power for a Range of Load Factors, 19 October 2009
Ref 6. Engenuity, Amaila Falls Survey Data Interpretation, October 2009
Ref 7. Montgomery Watson Harza, Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project Generating Facilities Owners
Requirement Drawings, 4 March 2011
Ref 8. The World Bank, Assessment of the Risk of Amazon Dieback, Main Report, February 4, 2010
Ref 9. Amaila Falls Hydro Inc, Amaila Falls Hydropower ESIA Report (accessible at
http://amailahydropower.com )
Ref 10. Mercados Energeticos Consultores, Economics and Financial Evaluation Study: Guyana Amaila
Falls Hydro Project, March 2010
Ref 11. Amaila Falls Reservoir Sediment Assessment and Intake Setting _R2_.pdf undated (received
from Sithe as an email attachment on 16 June 2011 )
Ref 12. MWHs written answers to Halcrows queries (received from Sithe as an email attachment on 16
June 2011 )
Ref 13. Government of Guyana Strategy for Sustaining the Guyana Power & Light, Inc, March 2007
Ref 14. Amaila Falls Hydro, Inc., Amaila Hydropower Project Generating Facilities, Section 8, Owner's
Requirements - Revised Drawings, March 2011

Draft Report


Annex 1 Amaila Falls Hydropower Project
Salient Feature
General
Project Location The confluence of Amaila and
Kuribrong Rivers
Coordinates
(at Powerhouse location)
Lat/Long:
52342 N
593358 W
UTM:
21 Northing - 596912
Easting - 219300
Site Elevation
Powerhouse 77.5 m, above mean sea level
(amsl)
Reservoir Full Supply Level (FSL)
431.55 m, amsl

Hydrology

Watershed Area (Drainage Area) upstream of dam 623 km2

Combined Amaila + Kuribrong River Flows
Mean Monthly Flow 64 m3/s
Average Monthly Maximum for a Given Year 151.25 m3/s
Average Monthly Minimum in a Given Year 14.84 m3/s
Record Monthly Maximum Flow 210.13 m3/s
Record Monthly Minimum Flow 4.48 m3/s
(for entire 41-year period of record)

Maximum Flood (Amaila and Kuribrong basins)
25-yr 1,339 m3/s
50-yr 1,486 m3/s

Probable Maximum Flood
Peak Flow 5,010 m3/s
Volume 314 mcm
Routed Outflow 2,034 m3/s
Estimated Annual Sediment Inflow 0.165 mcm
Estimated Annual Net Evaporation 630 mm

Hydropower Facility
Reservoir
Minimum operating level (MOL) 425.0 m, amsl
Full supply level (FSL) 431.55 m, amsl
Maximum flood surcharge level 434.35 m, amsl
Reservoir volume at FSL (gross storage) 135.6 mcm
Reservoir perimeter at FSL 59.6 km
Draft Report


Reservoir area at FSL 23.3 km2
Existing river channel area (already inundated) 1.5 km2
Net increase in flooded area at FSL 21.8 km2
Length as measured by Amaila channel 12 km
Length as measured by Kuribrong channel 7 km
Net active storage (FSL MOL) 101.3 mcm
Average depth 5.8 m
Maximum depth 25.3 m
Filling time to FSL (mean monthly inflow of 64 24 days
m3/s, assuming reservoir is empty at the start)
Filling time to MOL (mean monthly inflow of 64 6 days
m3/s, assuming reservoir is empty at the start)

Net Storage Time

At nominal 50 cms full output (assuming rated 80 days
flow, no inflow, no evaporation)

Dams
Construction Type Concretefaced, rock filled
Crest Elevation 435.05 m, amsl
Max Dam Height (above original ground surface) 18.25 m
Dam Crest Width 8 m
Main Dam Centerline Length (Amaila & Kuribrong) 2,460 m

Spillway
Type Ungated overflow
Spillway Crest Level 431.55 m, amsl
Spillway Capacity 2,034 m3/s
Spillway Length 236 m

Intake & Headrace Tunnel
Construction Type Concrete for intake, concrete or
shotcrete for headrace tunnel
depending on rock conditions
Intake Invert - Elevation 418 m, amsl
Length & Height of Intake 11 m width by 8 m high
Effective Face Area 66 m
2

Design Flow at 165 MW at FSL 50.4 m3/s
Headrace Tunnel Diameter and Length 4.0 or 4.6 m diameter depending on
rock conditions, 1,603 m length
Headrace Tunnel Max velocity at 165 MW 3.6 m/s

Surge and Power Shaft
Lining Concrete
Inside Diameter 3.4 m
Height 314.4 m

Power Tunnel
Construction Type Concrete, steel-lined concrete
Inside Diameter 3.40 m for concrete, 3.10 m for steellined
concrete
Top Invert (Elevation at Exit from Shaft) 81.25 m, amsl
Bottom Invert (at Entry to Powerhouse) 63.40 m, amsl
Length 1,231 m
Draft Report


Powerhouse (165 MW at FSL)
Number & Type of Units 4
Gross MW per Unit 41.25 MW
Total Gross Output at Generator Bus Bar 165 MW
Design Flow per Unit 12.6 m3/s

Tailrace
Gross Head at FSL 364.4 m
Nominal operating tailrace level (full load)
(typically vary less than 1 m) 67.2 m, amsl
Minimum downstream tailrace level (at 0 m3/s
assumed flow) 66.4 m, amsl
Extreme maximum operating downstream tailrace
level (based on spill flow of 2,034 m3/s during
Probable Maximum Flood) 75.6 m, amsl

Electrical Interconnect
Substations Linden, Sophia (Georgetown)
Voltage 230 kV / 69kV
Length 170 km, Amaila to Linden
100 km, Linden to Sophia
Corridor width
Amaila - Linden: 100 m +25m each side
selective clearing
Linden - Sophia: varies, typically 100 m
Tower construction type Steel lattice
Number of Circuits Two (i.e., dual circuits on single tower)
Conductor type 853.7 KCMIL 18/19
Tower height 36 m
Tower arm width 23 m
Conductor minimum height above ground 9 m

Access Roads
Length of two new roads 85 km (67 km and 18 km)
Length of upgrade roads 122 km
Road Width 5-7 m
Road Corridor width 20-30 m (portion of which will be within the
transmission line corridor)
Alignment As shown on mapping
Design vehicle loading 100 tonnes
Design Speed 50 km/hr
Sight distance 60 m
Preferred max slope 10%
Two (2) Kuribrong Bridges Steel framed

Draft Report


Annex 2 Main Data Used in Energy Yield
Assessments
A2.1 Reservoir Elevation, Area and Volume Relationships (received from MWH 22/06/2011)
Elevation
(m)
Area
(sq. m)
Volume
(cu.m)
440.0
439.0
438.3
438.0
437.6
437.0
436.0
435.5
435.0
434.0
433.0
432.0
431.55
431.0
430.0
429.0
428.0
427.0
426.0
425.0
424.0
423.0
422.0
421.0
420.0
62,439,059
58,060,450
54,061,308
53,541,636
51,602,229
46,669,206
41,470,211
38,694,577
36,635,315
32,259,642
27,169,210
24,259,630
23,286,514
22,014,873
19,489,793
16,897,065
14,474,359
12,309,602
9,939,376
8,388,726
7,189,034
6,147,785
5,069,662
3,896,700
2,661,101
486,190,218
426,278,652
387,311,016
371,186,576
347,609,782
320,683,236
276,633,490
255,058,762
237,792,552
203,462,963
173,278,752
146,582,792
135,598,561
122,964,571
102,048,342
83,850,491
68,183,731
54,832,155
43,411,578
34,302,919
26,515,609
19,857,297
14,243,286
9,757,648
6,491,547

A2.2 Tailwater Rating Table (received from Sithe 20/05/2011)
Elevation
(m)
Discharge
(m
3
/s)
66.35
66.6
66.8
67
67.2
67.21
71.29
71.59
71.89
75.59
76.71
79.3
80.69
0
16
24
32
48
64
655
728
800
2000
2500
4000
5000
Draft Report


A2.3 Baseline Monthly Steamflows
(Derived from Kaieteur Falls Monthly Flows by a transposition factor of 0.3)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1950 104.07 81.03 42.42 32.31 134.61 171.39 100.62 101.55 49.50 16.83 14.73 60.84 75.83
1951 63.66 110.58 58.11 86.82 136.14 171.72 132.36 79.74 26.01 18.12 9.81 15.78 75.74
1952 28.77 42.33 14.67 37.86 98.19 134.67 91.95 102.36 23.13 13.50 16.35 31.56 52.95
1953 89.31 148.20 108.63 60.78 166.11 154.89 104.43 50.25 25.92 14.28 10.98 79.59 84.45
1954 103.62 46.83 36.72 117.78 145.92 163.59 101.91 103.92 41.67 27.27 36.57 66.03 82.65
1955 45.21 39.75 80.40 64.17 125.04 101.91 111.99 55.62 35.13 16.29 17.22 85.02 64.81
1956 116.67 66.12 66.72 38.40 120.33 210.12 140.76 81.24 61.35 32.91 22.71 73.17 85.88
1957 71.82 67.14 20.10 15.66 106.02 163.17 134.64 68.40 34.44 10.56 14.31 48.39 62.89
1958 33.99 38.91 37.20 122.25 142.92 81.87 78.15 86.28 20.16 13.50 11.73 36.84 58.65
1959 27.72 32.76 22.17 46.17 49.53 149.49 161.46 61.17 47.10 17.52 38.01 56.88 59.17
1960 47.58 51.15 17.91 44.01 157.29 132.72 90.99 64.41 18.21 11.70 27.63 32.13 57.98
1961 39.75 16.86 10.56 4.47 25.05 146.49 105.33 70.92 34.05 15.96 18.60 38.16 43.85
1962 38.28 30.96 25.74 16.11 69.09 141.00 89.97 72.54 21.12 10.89 16.74 16.44 45.74
1963 70.29 60.72 42.48 42.90 136.29 156.45 89.55 64.41 23.40 8.52 9.06 27.18 60.94
1964 8.04 7.83 13.71 37.08 46.20 95.28 73.83 41.97 17.13 12.96 15.75 39.78 34.13
1965 40.23 29.40 22.32 15.24 94.17 139.17 79.83 64.83 19.71 9.66 26.10 20.85 46.79
1966 27.27 9.33 25.41 22.74 39.99 121.32 103.71 83.13 45.93 14.85 12.81 39.45 45.50
1967 69.48 27.81 21.54 49.71 133.05 144.60 118.35 79.59 30.90 12.78 17.64 35.94 61.78
1968 64.74 21.57 22.68 86.58 74.70 196.56 116.07 45.66 32.13 16.26 44.67 57.30 64.91
1969 75.27 54.48 24.09 26.07 87.24 109.20 59.64 68.97 19.02 16.74 10.02 16.59 47.28
1970 67.53 59.16 41.82 72.18 105.00 98.25 111.72 104.61 47.52 13.50 17.85 42.69 65.15
1971 64.89 45.78 35.46 50.07 157.50 166.02 155.37 74.10 43.47 24.78 33.03 39.24 74.14
1972 89.52 51.00 85.77 89.31 169.53 157.80 117.06 56.85 51.18 15.00 55.35 54.24 82.72
1973 22.86 17.73 19.38 26.13 61.32 133.14 126.99 68.43 99.66 62.94 64.05 92.70 66.28
1974 144.87 60.57 52.95 103.47 24.06 77.40 146.10 113.88 93.27 48.66 54.69 50.58 80.88
1975 102.96 70.41 34.08 21.78 54.48 184.59 110.82 138.57 90.99 28.05 27.75 69.15 77.80
1976 96.00 86.01 99.99 159.33 206.70 171.96 164.79 98.22 23.31 13.59 15.12 65.40 100.04
1977 48.18 32.97 45.27 30.57 108.42 142.44 164.55 134.37 54.15 28.65 18.87 50.07 71.54
1978 32.01 36.45 19.77 45.54 158.61 141.93 110.67 122.49 58.23 36.69 46.20 82.23 74.24
1979 68.43 23.28 73.68 81.60 132.36 145.50 107.88 75.60 32.79 46.50 30.24 57.45 72.94
1980 42.24 15.33 25.02 131.67 144.93 146.70 108.69 71.88 31.92 17.46 21.24 47.43 67.04
1981 58.38 42.90 31.26 43.95 103.47 140.82 106.80 84.33 59.37 36.42 23.58 59.64 65.91
1982 66.03 45.72 34.20 48.72 192.87 151.98 128.01 57.21 15.63 11.49 15.00 43.08 67.50
1983 60.03 25.47 40.14 108.93 123.48 91.59 70.26 59.49 23.01 14.64 19.29 44.46 56.73
1984 57.81 42.15 31.77 9.36 66.06 124.89 89.82 70.83 30.75 16.50 21.09 48.78 50.82
1985 59.04 43.11 16.41 12.51 72.96 124.65 48.63 56.49 23.97 15.66 20.10 40.59 44.51
1986 26.28 48.15 27.27 14.10 60.51 145.89 80.73 41.73 12.12 13.56 28.11 70.59 47.42
1987 76.77 53.58 36.78 45.39 107.85 142.17 105.15 71.73 32.49 18.36 22.02 49.20 63.46
1988 60.21 43.41 32.16 43.80 104.82 137.58 105.42 73.14 31.44 17.01 21.21 44.73 59.58
1989 57.03 38.55 29.61 41.61 100.98 168.33 111.93 34.83 15.09 21.96 39.51 37.83 58.11
1990 84.00 73.05 37.29 98.40 149.70 126.63 76.02 55.44 13.17 10.71 9.87 39.30 64.47
Minimum 8.04 7.83 10.56 4.47 24.06 77.40 48.63 34.83 12.12 8.52 9.06 15.78 34.13
Average 62.22 47.28 38.14 54.77 109.60 141.61 108.12 75.88 36.82 20.08 24.28 48.96 63.98
Maximum 144.87 148.20 108.63 159.33 206.70 210.12 164.79 138.57 99.66 62.94 64.05 92.70 100.04

Draft Report


A2.4 Estimated Monthly Net Reservoir Evaporation
(Adopted from MWH 2001 Report)

Draft Report


Annex C Site Visit Report
C1. Introduction
This short report summarises the Halcrow Hydrology Teams main activities during their visit to Guyana
from 18 to 22 May 2011, including site visits to two of the hydrometric gauging stations located on
Kuribrong River downstream of Amaila Falls and on Potaro River upstream Kaieteur Falls, respectively
and meetings at Hydro-meteorological Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and at the Guyana Energy
Agency.

The Halcrow Hydrology team visiting the sites comprised Zhengfu Rao (PM, Principal Consultant) and
Matthew Scott (Principal Hydrologist). They believe that most of the required information and data have
been collected pending further review and would like to thank Sithe for organising the meetings and
arranging the logistics to the gauging stations. They also appreciated the support provided by the Hydro-
meteorological Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and by the Guyana Energy Agency.

The Halcrow Project Team will analyse the information and data gathered on site and at the meetings and
report the findings at a later stage in the Draft Final Report.

C2. Site Visit Report
Tuesday 17
th
: pm: Left London Heathrow.

Wednesday 18
th
: Arrival and Meetings in Georgetown
08:00: Arrived Georgetown.
12:00: Met with Sithe Global representative Chris Kelly (Engineer) to discuss programme for site visit and
confirm scope of Hydrology Review.
14:00: Meeting at Hydro-meteorological Service of Ministry of Agriculture with Mr. Zainool Rahaman
(Specialist Hydrologist), Lydon Alves (Team Leader) and Kelvin Samaroo (Technician), joined by Chris
Kelly (Sithe) and John Cush (PPA), to discuss:
Availability of hydro-meteorological data post 1991, with particular reference to flow and level data
at Kaieteur Falls and Amaila Falls, and rainfall data at Kaieteur Falls.
Data collection procedures, with particular emphasis to hydro-meteorological data at Kaieteur Falls.
Availability of additional rainfall data, with particular reference to Kaieteur Falls.
Availability of 1975 pre-feasibility report for review.
Regional variation in precipitation, with particular reference to The Classification of the Rainfall
Regions of Guyana Climate related science series no. 4 report (May 1995).
16:00: Met with Sithe Global Senior Vice President Development (James McGowan) to confirm
programme for site visit and scope of Hydrology Review.

Thursday 19
th
: Site visit accompanied by Chris Kelly and Mr. Zainool Rahaman.
07:00: Arrive at airport for transfer to Kaieteur Falls landing strip.
10:30: Helicopter / boat transfer to hydrometric station on Kuribring River downstream of Amaila Falls.
11:00 14:00: Inspection of level recording equipment Sutron Constant Flow Bubbler pressure
transducer and Sutron 9210 XLite automatic data logger and manually-read staff gauge (see Figure).
Assisted in calibration of pressure transducer and staff gauge and discussion of operational maintenance
procedures.
14:00: Transfer by boat / helicopter to Kaieteur Falls landing strip.
Draft Report


14:30 16:00: Hike to hydrometric station on Potaro River upstream Kaieteur Falls. Site inspection
manual reading of staff gauge and spot check of level chart. Replacement of level; chart (see Figure).
16:30: Transfer to Georgetown.

Friday 20
th
: Meetings in Georgetown
09:30 12:00: Follow-up visit to Hydro-meteorological Service of Ministry of Agriculture to review
data management procedures and collect additional hydrometric data. Copies of Kaieteur Falls spot flow
measurements summary, stage-discharge ratings and cross sections, and Amaila Falls spot flow
measurements (1975) obtained (see Figure C). Additional data for Kaieteur Falls and Portage Falls
(Kuribrong River) provided.
14:30 15:30: Meeting at Guyana Energy Agency to review Hydroelectric Power Survey of Guyana
Final Report (Montreal Engineering Company Limited, April 1976). Copies of relevant sections of
Volumes 2, 4 and 5 obtained re: hydrology and sedimentation studies.

Saturday 21
st
: Free day

Sunday 22
nd
- Monday 23
rd
: Travel Back To UK
Sunday 22
nd
: 08:00: Left Georgetown.
Monday 23
rd
: 07:00: Arrived London Heathrow.

Photos Taken During the Site Visits

Figure C1: Proposed powerhouse is located on the left bank of the river (right on the photo).
Draft Report


Figure C2: Hydrometric station downstream Amaila Falls

Figure C3 Rainfall gauging station upstream Kaieteur Falls

Draft Report


Figure C4 Hydrometric station upstream Kaieteur Falls

Figure C5 Kaieteur Falls stage-discharge curve and spot flow measurements

Extract of Amaila Falls Hydrology Review Draft Report 23june2011

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

Extract of Amaila Falls Hydrology Review Draft Report 23june2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Halcrow Group Limited

Burderop Park Swindon Wiltshire SN4 0QD

You might also like