Review of the Weighted Average Asset Life of State Water ...€¦ · Draft Final for Issu Purpose...

Review of the Weighted AverageAsset Life of State Water Corporation Assets Final

5088375/ ReviWater Corpora

StratOperRevi

ReviLife o

11th De Notice This documRegulatory component State Water

WS Atkins Iassumes nodocument a

Documen

JOB NUMB

0

1

Revision

iew of the Weigation Assets.doc

tegic rationew

ew ofof Sta

ecembe

ment and its cTribunal of Nof the Strater Corporation

International o responsibiland/or its con

nt History

BER: 508837

Draft

Final for Issu

Purpose

hted Average Ac

Mananal an

f the ate W

er 2009

contents haveNew South Wegic Managen 2009.

(Australia) Lity to any oth

ntents.

75

ue

Description

Asset Life of Sta

agemnd Ca

WeigWater

e been prepaWales (IPART

ment Overvi

Limited (Atkinher party in r

JNSJ/AH

JNSJ/AH

Origin

ate

ment Oapital

ghtedCorp

ared and areT)’s informatiew, and Rev

ns), in assocespect of or

DOCAsse

DHB

DHB

nated Ch

Overvl Exp

d Aveporat

e intended soion and use

view of Opera

ciation with Carising out o

CUMENT REet Life of Stat

B AH

B EI

hecked R

view endit

rage ion A

olely for Indein relation to

rational and C

Cardno (Queeof or in conne

EF: Review ote Water Cor

H

IZ

Reviewed

and ture

AsseAsset

pendent Prico the asset lifCapital Expe

ensland) Pty ection with th

of the Weighrporation Ass

JPA

Authorised

et s

cing and fe

enditure of

y (Cardno) his

ted Averagesets.doc

07/12/09

11/12/09

Date

Review of the

5088375/RevieWater Corpora

ContSectionGlossary

Executive S

1. Intr1.1 Brie1.2 IPA1.3 Atk1.4 Sta

2. Ass2.1 Bac2.2 Ass2.3 Met

3. Res

4. Fin

5. Com List of Tab

Table 3.1 – Table 5.1 -

List of Figu

Figure 2.1 –Figure 2.2 –Figure 2.3 –Figure 2.4 –Figure 2.5 –

AppendAppendix A

Weighted Avera

ew of the Weighation Assets.doc

tents n

Summary

roduction ef

ART Methodoins Methodondards and

set Life Metckground set Data thodology

sults

dings

mparison w

les

Results for tExtracts from

ures

– Asset value– Asset value– Asset value– Confidence– Remaining

dices A – Compar

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

ologyologyDefinitions

hodology

with Other Ag

the top 12 asm Financial S

e by current e by age profe by original e grade of as

life of an as

rison of Des

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

gencies

ssets by valuStatements fo

assumed livefile and adjusted

ssessment byset

ignated Ass

Corporation Ass

te

ueor Useful Liv

es

d condition sy value

set Lives

sets

ves

scores

2

Page3

4

55566

888

10

14

16

18

1418

910111213

20

2

e 3

4

5 5 5 6 6

8 8 8 0

4

6

8

4 8

9 0

2 3

0

Review of the


Weighted Avera


Term

AASB

IFRS

RAB

RUL

NSW

NZ

SCA

SWC

TAMP

QLD

WA

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

m

Aust

Inter

Reg

Rem

New

New

Sydn

Stat

Tota

Que

Wes

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

G

tralian Accou

rnational Fin

ulatory Asse

maining Usef

w South Wale

w Zealand

ney Catchme

e Water Cor

al Asset Man

eensland

stern Austral

Corporation Ass

te

lossaDef

unting Stand

ancial and R

et Base

ul Life

es

ent Authority

rporation

agement Pla

ia

sets

ary finition

ards Board

Reporting Sta

y

an

andards

33

Review of the


ExecThis report change theprices from

The 2006 Dnew assetsSWC has pincrease the

We have bworksheetsMonte Carlothe proposemethodologand highligh

The asset baverage lifean average

The methodquantify theand reliableof failure fodowngradedthe methodo

We formed with good assessmenfor long lifeagencies wuncertain bwith the lonimprovemen

Our comparby SWC armethodolog

Opinion

In our opinicondition bajustify a cha160 years fo

Weighted Avera


cutive presents ou

e average as2011.

Determinatios. The Regulproposed an e average de

based our r due to the lo modelling ed 83 year agy to assess hted the area

base is prede at or greate

age of abou

dology applie risk of failure data is avaor an assetd resulting inology as the

the view thapractice. H

ts of asset life assets sucwith similar a

ut drives signg life assetnts in overall

rison of assere generally gy.

ion, while theased assessange in the aor existing as

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

Sumur findings ansset life to d

n applied anlated Asset average assepreciation c

review on thack of a spewas limited verage asseaverage ass

as of uncerta

ominantly daer than 150 yut 40 years.

ied by SWCre. The condilable for onlt below the n a reductionprocess was

at the methodHowever, thefe. There areh as dams a

assets. The ignificant redts we have l service pote

et lives usedconsistent.

ere may welsments, the asset life assssets and 75

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

mmarynd opinion oderive the re

n average lifBase (RAB)

set life for all charge from $

he Total Asecific report mto input data

et life to the bset life. This

ainty.

ams and conyears. The a

C has been dition assessy just over hbenchmark

n in the remas not clearly

dology of use analysis e difficulties iand structureimpact of a uctions in reseen. The aential from m

by other agSome agenc

ll be a case current ana

sumptions ap5 years for ne

Corporation Ass

te

y n the sufficie

egulatory dep

fe of 160 yeain 2010 is eassets of 83

$5.1M to $6.2

sset Managemaking the ca and resultsbase data. Whelped us to

ncrete structssets were m

to assess thment was ca

half the assetk condition gaining asset documented

ing a conditiis not suffiin demonstraes. The difficreduction in

emaining assanalysis doemaintenance

encies in Aucies are intro

to reduce thalysis and dapplied to theew assets be

sets

ency of the Spreciation to

ars for assetequally appo3 years. The 2M per annu

ement Plan ase for a cha

s and we weWe sought fuo understand

ures. The grmainly create

he service –arried out in at base. Whegrade for itslife. We found.

on based asiciently matuating a good culty of calib

n service potset life whic

es not apply and enhance

ustralia showoducing con

he asset life ata provided

2006 Detere retained for

State Water be applied

ts existing inortioned to eimpact of th

um over the f

(TAMP) doange in asse

ere not able turther expland the method

reater part oed over the p

– condition aa structured ere there is as age then nd difficulty in

sset life is apure and tescalibration o

bration is an tential due th on inspectwo way ad

ement expen

ws that the cudition based

from the cu to us are nmination. Wer the 2010 D

Corporationin the Dete

n 2004 and existing and e proposed future price p

ocument andet life. Informto follow traiations from dology and a

of the asset bperiod 1959

and performapproach alt

a high consethe actual

n understand

ppropriate ansted to proof the Weibul

issue commo consequention appear

djustments tonditure.

urrent assumd asset life u

rrent assumnot sufficiente advise thaetermination

4

proposal toermination of

75 years fornew assets.change is to

path.

d supportingmation on the

ls back fromSWC on theassumptions

base has anto 1984 with

mance – andthough goodquence costcondition is

ding parts of

nd consistentovide robustll distribution

mon to othernce costs isinconsistent

o reflect the

mptions usedusing similar

ptions usingtly robust tot the current

n.

4

o f

r

o

g e

m e s

n h

d d t s f

t t

n r s t

e

d r

g o t

Review of the


1. IInAaTpSath

Wliwin

1.1 BT

(

(

(

(

Tfo

1.2 IIPiture

Tacb

Tthbyta

1 Review of

Weighted Avera


Introdn SeptembeAtkins/Cardnand capital eTribunal’s Deperiod from 1State Water assessment ahe price revi

We commentves. Our fin

with other agn the Execut

Brief The brief is to

i) A reviewjustificat

ii) Further eclear;

iii) A report and calc

iv) An opini

This study ador deriving d

PART PART determts Building Bused in provegulatory de

This regulatoallowance focustomers, Sbusiness will

The regulatorhe assumedby this annuayear. This dariffs for the

f prices for St

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

ductior 2009 the Ino consortium

expenditure oetermination 1 July 2010. Corporation’and providesew process.

t in Section 2ndings are inencies in Au

tive Summar

o assess the

w all relevant tions for the s

explanation f

to IPART thculation of its

on of an app

ddresses onlyepreciation.

Methomines the re

Block approaciding the reg

epreciation.

ory depreciaor regulatoryState Water’allow for the

ry depreciati average as

al depreciatiodepreciation 2010 Determ

tate Water C

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

n ndependent m to carry ouof State Waton prices f IPART sub

’s proposed s an opinion

2 on the Stancluded in Seustralia and cry at the front

sufficiency o

documents selection of 8

from State W

at outlines os proposed a

propriate ave

y the propos

odologevenue requich. This comgulated serv

ation chargey depreciatios capital inf

e cost of main

on charge isset life. The

on charge bucharge and

mination.

Corporation, I

Corporation Ass

te

Pricing Tribuut a strategicter Corporatfor the upcobsequently aaverage asson the appro

te Water Coection 4. We current UK pt of this repo

of State Wat

that detail an83 years;

Water where

our assessmesset life, and

erage asset li

sed average

gy red for capit

mprises two eices and an

e is to reflecon recognisfrastructure ntaining its c

s calculated e RAB for 20ut offset by in

revised RAB

IPART July 2

sets

unal of New c managemetion. The puroming price asked Atkins/set life. This opriate avera

orporation’s aalso compa

practice in Sert.

er’s propose

nd explain St

its methodol

ent of the sufd

ife for State W

asset life ass

al investmenelements, an

allowance f

ct the consses that throwill wear ou

capital base.

by dividing t010 is estimancreases fromB is used by

2009

South Walesent overview rpose of thiscontrol perio/Cardno to areport prese

age asset life

approach to tare the assetection 5. We

ed average a

tate Water’s

ogy and/or ju

fficiency of S

Water.

sumptions an

nt over the pallowance fo

for a return

umption of ough the put and that

the Regulatoated at $510m new investy IPART to

s (IPART) apand review

s review is tood which apassess the sents our finde to be consi

the assessmt lives propose summarise

sset life com

method and

ustifications

State Water’s

nd not the m

price control or a return oof these ass

assets eachprovision of

an efficient

ory Asset BasM1. The RABtment and inmodel and d

5

ppointed theof operatingo inform the

pplies to thesufficiency ofdings on thisdered within

ment of assetsed by SWCour findings

mprising:

d

are not

s approach

methodology

period usingn the assetssets, termed

h year. Theservices to

tly operating

se (RAB) byB is reducedflation in thederive water

5

e g e e f s n

t C s

g s d

e o g

y d e r

Review of the


IPath

FaA

“d

Inh

1.3 AWththcaisro

SA

1

2

Slimp

Wau

W

1.4 SApthAreadm

2 State Wat3 State Wat4 Submissio

Weighted Avera


PART has iannual charghe utility of th

For the 2006assets prior tAssets post-2

“The significadams have o

n the 2006 historical cos

Atkins We have revhe Submissihe data, asscarried out soand the sensssues with thobustness of

SWC has preAdditional do

. Total As

2. Workshe

State Water fe. We have

modelling waproposed 83

We sought fua further undunderstand th

We discuss th

StandaAustralia hasperiods commhe appropriaAASB 136 “eplacement

asset in its ediscarded (Rmethod used

er Corporatioer Corporatio

on to IPART

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

ndicated2 thge. For the 2he asset is c

6 Determinatto July 20042004 had an

ant differencen asset lives

Determinatiot and deprec

Methoiewed the Ston, examinesumptions aome analysissitivity of asshe agency. Of the analysis

esented its cumentation

sset Managem

eet Asset Ba

agreed that e therefore bas limited to iyear averag

urther explanderstanding he methodolo

he SWC met

ards ans adopted themencing on oate standardImpairment cost of the e

environment,Remaining U reflects the

on Determinaon Determina2010 Determ

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

at it is revie2006 Determconsumed eq

tion, IPART 4 were legac

assumed 75

e in asset livs for existing

on, State Waciated at the

odologytate Water C

ed supportingand methodos but have nsumptions. WOur report iss.

proposals fon was made a

ment Plan S

ank v21 whic

there was nbased our reinput data ane asset life to

nations from Son the metogy and ass

thodology in

nd Defe Internationor after 1 Jan

ds are the dof Assets”.

economic ben, the estimat

Useful Life (predicted pa

ation Reportation Report

mination, Sta

Corporation Ass

te

ewing the deination a stra

qually over th

established cy assets and5 year asset

ves between assets”.

ater also harates adopte

y Corporation’sg documentsology used not had full aWe have revi

based on th

or a change available as

ection 4, SW

h includes a

no formal repeview on thend results ano the base d

SWC througthodology toumptions an

Section 2.

finitional Financial nuary 2005. ocuments: AThese standnefits provideted time unt(RUL)). The attern of cons

t, IPART Sept, IPART Septe Water Co

sets

epreciation maight line me

he life of the

a RAB and d assumed alife. IPART

existing and

ad some shoed for accoun

s proposals fs and workinby SWC to

access to theiewed suppohe extent of

in Asset Lifpart of our e

WC Septembe

full listing of

port which mese documennd we were ndata.

h emails and assess aved highlighted

s and ReportinFor the valu

AASB 116 “Pdards ask aed by the asstil the next m

standards sumption of t

ptember 2006ptember 2006rporation Se

method to bethod was usasset.

drew a ‘linean average commented

d new assets

ort-lived assenting purpose

for average ang papers an

derive its pe SWC modeorting informathe data reli

fe within its fficiency rev

er 2009.

f assets and

made the casnts. Informatnot able to fo

d a telephoneerage asset d the areas o

ng Standarduation of infraProperty Pla

a utility to coset, the apprmajor renewalso ask wthe asset’s fu

6 6 ptember 200

be applied tosed which a

e in the sanasset life of that

s reflects the

ets that it haes.

asset life incnd sought toproposed aselling to test ation and disability, assu

Submission iew and inclu

related analy

se for a chantion on the Mollow trails ba

e conferencelife. This h

of uncertainty

s (IFRS) for astructure asant and Equonsider theropriate usef

wal event or hether the uture econom

09 6

o derive thessumes that

d’ assuming160 years3.

e impact that

as valued at

cluded withino understandsset life. We

the analysisscussed keymptions and

to IPART4 .uded:

ysis.

nge in assetMonte Carloack from the

e call to gainhelped us toy.

all reportingssets entitiesipment” and

e estimatedful life for thethe asset isdepreciationmic benefits.

6

e t

g

t

t

n d e s y d

t o e

n o

g s

d e s n

Review of the


A

“

aswc

Trerea

Weighted Avera


AASB116 def

“the systema

and that eacseparately. Twith similar pcomponent a

The depreciaesidual valueeporting per

amount are s

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

fines deprec

tic allocation

ch significanThis implies tphysical and nd they are t

able amount e and the usriod. If expesignificant, ap

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

ciation as:

n of the depre

nt part of athat infrastruoperating chto be deprec

of an asset seful life of anectations diffeppropriate ad

Corporation Ass

te

eciable amou

an item of pcture assetsharacteristicsciated separa

is allocatedn asset are ter from prevdjustments to

sets

unt of an ass

property, plas are to brokes. A separatately.

d on a systemto be reviewevious estimao accounts a

set over its us

ant and equen down intote useful life

matic basis ed at least aates and if ire made.

seful life”.

uipment be o significant

is to be app

over its useft the end of impacts on

7

depreciatedcomponents

plied to each

ful life. Theeach annualthe carrying

7

d s h

e l

g

Review of the


2. A2.1 B

Inaare

Tine

Tfrin

2.2 ATam$oo

5 Submissio

Weighted Avera


AssetBackgrn Section 5average asseassumed in eview of its w

The regulatonitial RAB inexisting pre 2

The impact orom $5.1M tncludes shor

Asset DThe SWC asand associatmonitoring an$3,400M. Theon the assumof assets by a

on to IPART

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

t Life round of its Submet life from 1the 2006 Dewater infrastr

ry asset basn 2004 was2004 assets f

of SWC’s proo $6.2M perrt life assets

Data sets are preted works and control ofe depreciate

med asset livassumed life

2010 Determ

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

Meth

mission5, Sta60 years foreterminationructure, land

se (RAB) is $241M nomform about 5

oposed chanr annum, offswhich are de

dominantly dand smaller f the assets

ed optimised ves used in the and modern

mination, Sta

Corporation Ass

te

odolo

ate Water Cr existing ass to 83 years and buildin

approximateminal which 50% of the cu

nge in asset set by a reduepreciated at

dams and asmiscellaneo

. The existireplacemen

he 2006 Detn replacemen

te Water Co

sets

ogy

Corporation sets, prior tos for all assng assets in

ely $520M awhen takin

urrent RAB.

life would beuction in the t the rates ad

ssociated strous and shong asset ba

nt cost is of ttermination. nt value.

rporation Se

proposed too 2004, and sets. This w2009.

at the curreng inflation in

e to increasereturn on a

dopted for ac

uctures, pipeort life assese has a grothe order of Figure 2.1 sh

ptember 200

o change the75 years for

was based on

nt 2010 pricento account

e regulatory slightly lowe

ccounting pu

ework and vaets associatoss replacem$2,300M. T

hows the dis

09 8

e regulatoryr new assetsn a detailed

e base. Theshows that

depreciationer RAB. Thisrposes.

alving, weirsed with thement cost ofhis is based

saggregation

8

y s d

e t

n s

s e f d n

Review of the


F

Dao

Tb

Weighted Avera


Figure 2.1 – A

Dams, embaassumed liveonly 4% of re

This asset baby the previo

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

Asset value by

ankments anes of 150 yeaeplacement v

ase has beenus organisat

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

y current ass

nd concrete ars forming 8value.

n built up ovetion. The gro

Corporation Ass

te

sumed lives

structures 80% of the as

er time as thwth in the as

sets

form the grsset base. A

e provision osset base is s

reater part oAssets with 75

of bulk watershown in Fig

of the asse5 years or le

r services hagure 2.2.

9

et base withess comprise

as developed

9

h e

d

Review of the


F

Tc

Twrea

2.3 MS

(

(

(

(

(v

Ta

C

TpsinM

Weighted Avera


Figure 2.2 – A

The figure shcorrespondin

The asset liswhich nearly elate to 350

average asse

MethodSWC’s metho

i) Conditio

ii) Assessm

iii) Compar

iv) Adjustm

v) Analysis

The analysis analysis.

Condition Ba

The service pphysical weasimilar limits nterviews wiManagement

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

Asset value by

hows that abog age range

sting provide4,500 repo

0 assets of wet life is there

dologyodology com

on data surve

ment of the c

ison of asset

ent of servic

s of remainin

and discuss

ased Survey

potential of ear and tear, t

on the life oith operationt team using

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

y age profile

out 70% of th from 25 to 5

ed in the sprt a gross r

which the toefore sensitiv

y mprises five m

ey and collati

consequence

t service pote

ce potential s

g asset life th

sion below u

ys

each asset wthe technica

of assets. Thns staff and g a standar

Corporation Ass

te

he asset bas50 years.

readsheet ‘Aeplacement p 12 assetsve to assump

main stages

ion

e of failure

ential agains

score to reflec

hrough a Mo

uses the gro

was determinal and commhese assessm

desk top ardised and

sets

se was create

Asset Bank cost. About represent 3ptions on a s

st the benchm

ct condition a

onte-Carlo an

oss optimise

ned from foumercial obsolments were

analysis. Thedocumented

ed over the p

21’ includest 80% of the33% of total mall number

mark asset

and risk of fa

nalysis

d replaceme

ur factors: exescence of carried out t

e work was d approach.

period 1959

s over 13,00e total replac

value. Ther of high valu

ailure

ent cost for

xpected usagassets and through site managed bSWC comm

10

to 1984 with

00 entries ofcement cost

e analysis ofue assets.

comparative

ge, expectedany legal orinspections,

by the Assetmented that

0

h

f t f

e

d r t t

Review of the


cb

T

Emb

T(alorecimind

F

T

Sdra

Weighted Avera


consistency oby two of the

The expected

Expected wemaintenance between main

The assessmpoor – failed

analysis takeowest score eported the

compliance ampacted by nadequate thdifferent locat

Figure 2.3 – A

The analysis

SWC has apdata and 4 bating by perc

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

of approach Asset Mana

d usage of th

ear and teaprogramme

ntenance an

ments gradedd condition aes the minim

for most aslowest scor

against currethese stan

he spillway ition. The res

Asset value by

shows that 6

pplied a confeing robust centage asse

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

was an issuagement team

he asset was

ar is depende. For short ad replaceme

d each asset and unaccep

mum score frossets related re against teent dam safendards, for eis not replacsulting overa

y original and

60% of asset

idence ratingdata. We set value in Fi

Corporation Ass

te

e and this wm.

s assessed b

dent on the and medium

ent.

on a 7 (excptable risks) om the four to condition

echnical or cety requiremeexample spiced but may ll asset cond

d adjusted co

ts by value h

g for each ahow the reliaigure 2.4.

sets

was managed

y each asset

utilisation om life assets

ellent – newfor each of derived from

n, that is expcommercial ents hence illways. In pbe supplem

dition score is

ondition scor

has a score g

sset on a 1 ability of the

d through ch

t’s capacity o

of each asswe would e

w condition anthe four crit

m data collecpected wear obsolescenclow scores wpractice whe

mented by ans shown in F

res

greater than

to 4 scale, 1overall data

ecking of da

or physical o

set and theexpect to see

nd acceptaberia defined ction. We foand tear. S

ce. This latwere reporteere spillway n additional sFigure 2.3.

4.

1 representina through the

11

ata and visits

output.

repair ande a trade-off

le risks) to 1above. The

und that theSome assetstter includes

ed for assetscapacity is

spillway in a

ng uncertaine confidence

s

d f

e e s s s s a

n e

Review of the


F

T

C

Sraeam

Ste

C

Tdpradp

Oaac

Wadc

Weighted Avera


Figure 2.4 – C

The analysis

Consequenc

State Water hange of tang

economic andand assignedmagnitude of

SWC commeerms and su

Comparison

The cumulatidefined paraprobability of ate of valves

dam wall strportfolio risk a

Our view is tassets such aapply to longcalibration is

Where the seage and follodetermining tconsequence

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

Confidence gr

shows that r

ce of Failure

has assessegible and intd compliancd a score onf the consequ

ents that themmated to d

n of asset se

ve probabilitmeters for tf failure of ols in new anducture assetanalysis proc

that the Weas valves aner life assetsan issue com

ervice potentwing the typthe remainin

e of failure an

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

rade of asses

reliable data

e

ed the consetangible conse impacts. En a 1 (catasuence.

e consequenderive a total

ervice poten

ty of failure othe Weibull d valve comd satisfactoryts for compacess.

eibull distribund gates, buts such as dammon to othe

tial rating forical pattern o

ng useful lifend the risk co

Corporation Ass

te

ssment by va

was used fo

equence of fasequences, Each asset cstrophic) to

nce scale is consequenc

ntial against

over time is distribution b

mponents andy condition. arability with

ution can be t there is not

ams, embanker agencies

r an asset wof service poe of each aosts. SWC su

sets

lue

or just over 5

ailure from nincluding hecomponent w7 (minor) im

used to assce of failure f

the benchm

estimated usbased on ord from dam The probabi

h the dam fa

used and ct sufficient okments and cwith similar a

was lower thaotential use tsset. These ubsequently

0% of the as

ine categorieealth and safwas assessempact corres

sess the confor each asse

mark asset

sing a Weiburder of magoperations sility estimateailure proba

calibrated fooperating expconcrete struassets.

an the benchhen three facwere the pcommented

ssets by valu

es which capfety, societaled against easponding to

nsequence cet.

ull distributionitude estim

staff on the oes were checbilities deriv

r short and perience to cuctures. The

hmark asset ctors were c

probability of that:

12

e.

pture the fulll safety, andach categorythe order of

cost in dollar

n. SWC hasmates on theobserved failcked againsted from the

medium lifecalibrate ande difficulty of

of the sameonsidered inf failure, the

2

l d y f

r

s e l t

e

e d f

e n e

Review of the


Fseeca

Ta2

A

TCmre

F

Tsorepn

Soaa

Weighted Avera


“We doobserveanalysisgreater otherwiin the a

For those assservice ratingexceeds a 1exceeds a 1:cost exceedsapplied.

This analysisasset base b23% by two c

Analysis of R

The remaininCarlo analysmainly driveneproduced b

Figure 2.5 – R

The relationssome broad aone or two emaining as

performance numerical cal

SWC has deoutcomes anaverage asseassumed the

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

o not have bed decay ags) for all assr than a giveise we retain

attached spre

sets with a log based on :1000 chanc100 chance

s the annuali

s results in a y optimised

condition gra

Remaining A

ng life associis. This is bn by conditiobelow for eas

Remaining life

hip betweenassumptionsgrades for set life. Ourand, becau

lculations.

erived the remnd expert judet life which 83 year wei

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

benchmarks gainst that osets. When

en threshold, ned the origineadsheet.”

ower service the risk cosce of severeof severe lo

ised weighte

revised currreplacement

ades.

Asset Life

iated with eabased on a on shown inse of referenc

e of an asset

the conditios on the rangsome asset

r view is that se of the se

maining life dgement of ihas two peaghted averag

Corporation Ass

te

assets, per of the mode an asset's dwe elected

nal life and d

potential thast generated e loss a redoss then a twed cost of rep

rent asset set cost had be

ach service prelationship

n Figure 2.5ce.

on rating and ge of each cots below a the service p

ensitivity of a

associated win-house sta

aks, one at yge life in its S

sets

se. What weand mean d

decay variedto use a for

depreciation

an the benchfrom the an

duction of onwo point redplacement th

ervice potenteen shifted b

potential scobetween thbelow, take

assumed reondition gradbenchmark potential graassumptions

with each raaff. The resuyear 61 and aSubmission.

e did do wadecay curve

d from this mrmula to detedate. These

hmark assetsnalysis abovne point is uction is apphen a two po

tial profile. Wby one cond

ore has beenhe adjusted en from the

esidual life shde. In additioasset has a

ades are an in, do not len

ating from a ult is a profia further pea

s compare ees (using a Mmode/mean bermine a ne

e formulae ar

s, SWC has ve. Where tapplied. If tplied. Similaroint reduction

We noted thaition grade a

n derived usiservice poteSWC metho

hown in the fon, the subjea material rndicator of cd themselve

Monte Carloile of probabak at year 83

13

each asset'sMonte Carloby a margin

ew asset life,re explained

adjusted thethe risk costhe risk costrly if the riskn is similarly

t 35% of theand a further

ng a Monte-ential rating,odology and

figure makesective shift ofreduction onondition and

es directly to

o analysis ofble weighted3. SWC has

3

s o n

d

e t t k y

e r

-

d

s f n d o

f d s

Review of the


3. RR

Wc

W

1

2

3

Weighted Avera


ResulResults of th

We reviewedcost. These a

Asset

Copeton

GLND

Burrendon

Blowering

Burrendong

Burrinjack

GLND

Windamere

Blowering

Keepit

Wyangala

Copeton

We noted tha

. The minassets.

2. The conby two p

3. Technica

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

lts he analysis

the analysisassets repres

Elem

Struc

Struc

g Struc

Struc

g Conc

Conc

Conc

e Struc

Conc

ConcDa

Old DWa

Conc

at:

nimum cond

dition grade points for the

al obsolesce

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

s for the top sent 33% of

Table 3.1 – R

ment Grepl

cture

cture

cture

cture

crete

crete

crete

cture

crete

crete m

Dam all

crete

ition score w

is reduced inremaining s

ence is drivin

Corporation Ass

te

12 assets, athe asset ba

Results for th

Gross lacement cost $M

151

141

127

120

116

93

82

73

68

62

60

57

was related

n nine of thesix assets.

g minimum c

sets

all dam strucase. The resu

e top 12 asse

ServicePotentiaOverall

condition g

4

4

3

2

5

3

5

3

3

5

3

4

to ‘expecte

e twelve asse

condition sco

ctures, in termults are show

ets by value

e al rade

Adj

Condtea

Condtea

Condtea

Condtea

Cond

Condtea

Cond

Condtea

Tecob

Tec

Condtea

Condtea

d wear and

ets, by one p

ore for two as

ms of gross wn in Table 3

ustments tograde

dition grade r)– 2 to refle




dition grade tear)


dition grade tear)


chnical and cbsolescence

reflect risk

chnical and cobsolesce



tear’ for te

point for three

ssets.

14

replacement3.1 below.

o condition e

6 (wear and ct risk cost




5 (wear and )


5 (wear and )


commercial and -1 to

k cost

commercial ence



en of the 12

e assets and

4

t

2

d

Review of the


4

5

Aethufare

Tocwres

Wsomd

Oaw

S

Wreo

Waath

Weighted Avera


4. The impFor examyears foa 37% re

5. The techstandardperforma

As an exampefficiency stuhat the strucupstream facailure. Fromemaining as

The Blowerinobsolescenceconsequencewe are not awesolved by a

serviceable.

We found froshorter life asobsolescencemodified anddepreciated a

Overall the rassessment was applied t

Sensitivity te

We were not emaining as

of any sensiti

We also carriand that 42%adjustment. Ohe life of exis

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

pact of movinmple a shift fr a 200 year eduction or n

hnical obsoleds. These ance and ext

ple, we lookedy. The damcture had bece. The grad

m Figure 2.5set life, or ne

ng dam cone, before te cost. We asware of any oadditional w

om long-livessets. For exe. The approd upgraded tat the new as

results of thbut is not imto 35% of the

ests

able to undeset life. Thisivity tests car

ied out a hig% of assets haOur analysissting assets

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

ng an asset from a gradecurrently as

nearly 75 yea

escence scorare being tend the life

ed at the resm was constreen assessede had been this adjustmearly half its

crete structuthe conditiossume the 3other factors

works to the

d assets of xample pumpoach is differeto extend itssset life assu

he analysis mpacted frome asset base

ertake sensits did not howrried out by S

h level analyad no adjust

s suggests thby about hal

Corporation Ass

te

by one poine 6 to 4 redussumed assears for a 200

re relates to addressed

of the assets

sults for the ructed in 196ed as a condn reduced toment represasset life.

ure was ranon grade w3 ranking is bs which wouldassets but n

this type, thps and valveent for earth service cap

umption. The

show that 4m the consee and a 2 poin

tivity tests ofwever impact SWC.

ysis assumintment to assuhat the impalf the current

sets

nt has a matces asset life

et life. A move year asset l

shortcomingin capital

s.

Blowering D68 with a 200dition grade

o 2 to reflectsents a shift

nked a 3 bewas downgrbecause of thd impact on tnot writing o

he approaches are genera and concret

pability and ae life of the o

42% of the equence cosnt reduction

f changing aon the findin

ng that 50% oumed lives. W

act of the cot assumed 16

terial impact e by on averement from gife.

gs in asset pexpenditure

Dam which w0 year assum

4 with a not the conseqt from an av

cause of tecaded one he lack of cathis. In prac

off the origin

h to asset seally replacedte structuresasset life, woriginal asset

asset base t adjustmentto a further 2

ssumptions ngs of our re

of the RAB rWe assume ndition base60 years.

on remaininrage 27% or grade 5 to 3

performance e projects

we visited asmed asset lifote to say cquence cost verage 63%

chnical and point beca

apacity of thectice this obsoal assets wh

erviceability d due to conds where theseith the additt is extended

has a condt. A one poi23%.

on the resulteview. We ar

related to exthat new ass

ed asset life

15

ng asset life.just over 50would show

against newto improve

s part of thefe. We notedracks in theof an asset

% to 15% of

commercialuse of thee spillway asolescence ishich are still

differs fromdition and/ore assets aretional assetsd.

dition basedint reduction

ting averagere not aware

isting assetssets have nois to reduce

5

0 w

w e

e d e t f

l e s s l

m r e s

d n

e e

s o e

Review of the


4. FOdaa

M

SsWmw

D

Daththth

R

(

(

(

(

Weighted Avera


FindinOur findings documents aanalysis but hassumptions.

Methodology

SWC has tasurveys, expWeibull detemethodology were used. It

Data Reliabi

Data on condassets. The che remaininghat there arhese are ma

Robustness

i) The servsome asupgraderolled inextendedbut we conditioncondition

ii) The assstructureassets obe appropotentia

iii) The cuman accequality dcalibratiocalibratio

iv) We chalshown ina step fr2 is 48%about 15

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

ngs are based ond worksheehave not had. Our main fi

y

ken a detaiert opinion o

erioration cuis in placeswould be he

lity

dition has beconfidence og half as lessre inconsisteaterial. There

of Analysis

vice potentiassets where ed to new stnto the RABd. This couldhave not s

n, rather thn, that these

set base is es where intor parts of asopriate. Shorl where the m

mulative probpted method

data over theon of curveson is an issu

llenge the ren Figure 2.5 rom grade 6 %. Using a m5%.

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

on the reviewets. We haved full accessndings are s

led approacon service prves. This

s unclear anelpful to docu

een collectedof the data iss reliable or

encies with s is further wo

s

al includes anew standartandards. WB. The secod be represeeen this. Alan a two-wenhanceme

predominanterventions tssets. Againrt and mediumodelling is v

bability of faid of analysise life of assets for dams ae common to

elationship beas the stepsto 4 is an av

more even g

Corporation Ass

te

w of State We discussed ks to the SWChown below

h to the estpotential andapproach is

nd we had dument the pro

d from the fis also reportuncertain. Wsome asset ork to improv

an element frds are being

When this woond benefit iented in the ll the adjust

way adjustments would pr

ntly long-liveto address d, a two-way

um life assetvalid.

ilure is mode, the calibratts. This may nd concrete o other agen

etween the ss between coverage reductrading curve

sets

Water’s approkey issues w

C modelling t.

timation of wd consequens consistent ifficulty in unocess more

ield interviewted with som

We noted fromdata althoug

ve the quality

for technicalg applied. Fork is compis that the asset mode

tments are ent, either rovide.

ed assets sdeteriorationadjustment

ts tend to be

elled throughtion of the cbe possible structures is

ncies with sim

service potenondition gradtion of 27% i

e, a step cha

oach and exwith SWC. Wto trail data a

weighted asnce of failure

with good nderstandingclearly.

wing local stame 50% of vam inspection gh we are uy of the data.

obsolescenFor example lete, the caplife of the a

el by an increone-way, tha deteriorat

uch as damn in service

of the service replaced at

h a Weibull durves depenwith short ors not demon

milar assets.

ntial score anes appear inin asset life w

ange in grade

xamination oWe have carrie

and test the

sset life basee and the a

practice. Hg how the s

aff and inspalue good orof the sprea

unsighted as.

nce which is dam spillwaypital expendasset being ease in servhat is a detetion or impr

ms, weirs anpotential is

ce potential t the end of

distribution. Wnds on evider medium lifenstrated. The

nd remainingnconsistent. Fwhereas a ste would be e

16

of supportinged out somesensitivity of

ed on assetpplication of

However thepreadsheets

ecting somer reliable butadsheet datas to whether

a driver forys are being

diture will bemodified is

vice potentialerioration inrovement in

nd concreteto renovatescore wouldtheir service

While this isence of goode assets; thee difficulty of

g asset livesFor exampletep from 4 toequivalent to

6

g e f

t f

e s

e t

a r

r g e s l

n n

e e d e

s d e f

s e o o

Review of the


A

Wwo

WaHlis

OasDcDli

Weighted Avera


Audit Trails

We were noworkings to boutturn asset

We formed tappropriate aHowever the fe particular

service poten

Our opinion assumptions sufficiently roDeterminationconsistent wDeterminationfe assets su

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

ot able to fobase data. At life. Our find

the view thaand consisteanalysis is n

rly with the ntial applied.

is that whileusing condi

obust to jun. The curr

with other an. The 160 ych as dams

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

ollow clear ts such we wdings are the

at the methont with goodnot sufficientuse of the W

e there mayition based astify a chaent 160 yea

agencies wityear asset lifand structure

Corporation Ass

te

trails from thwere not ableerefore based

odology of ud practice. Thtly mature anWeibull distr

y well be a assessmentsnge in the ars for existth similar afe is consistes. .

sets

he 83 year e to test the sd on the data

using a conhere is scopnd tested to pribution and

case to reds, the analys

asset life ting assets

assets and ent with othe

average lifesensitivity ofa and tests w

ndition basedpe to improveprovide robuthe impact

duce the asssis and dataassumptionsand 75 yeashould be

er agencies

e proposed f the assumpwe have been

d asset life e the quality ust assessme

of the step

set life from a provided tos applied toars for new retained fowith predom

17

through theptions on then able to do.

is generallyof the data.

ents of assetchanges in

the currento us are noto the 2006

assets areor the 2010minantly long

7

e e

y t

n

t t

6 e 0 g

Review of the


5. CInfo

(

(

(

(

Tty

SP

Au

Weighted Avera


Compn determininollowing info

i) Useful liv

ii) Useful liv

a. Total MResour

b. Internatbeen pr

c. Asset MWorks D

iii) Financiastatemeasset claSydney

iv) Previous09).

The useful livypical range

Asset Genera

definition(asset life

years)

Dams and associated works

Buildings astructures

Plant and equipment

Pipelines afittings

Drains and channels

Source: Atkins Plant and equipm

A review of Tuseful life est

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

parisong appropriarmation:

ves adopted

ves included

Management rces Manage

tional Infrastrovided in the

ManagemenDepartment

al statementsnts were revasses. HowWater and W

s reports pre

ves have beof useful live

Table 5

l ns e in

TypicRang

100 200

nd 60-10

10-4

nd 40-10

80-15

Cardno analysment for some a

Table 5.1, Atimates are r

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

on witate useful li

by Cardno i

d in the follow

Planning Gement, Qld;

tructure Mane 2006 Editio

t Guidelines1992;

s prepared bviewed, but mwever, the asWater Corpor

epared for IPA

een summaries is shown t

5.1 - Extracts

cal ge

State Water

- 0

30-200

00 2-92

40 3-30

00

50 5-15

sis of public daagencies would

ppendix A areasonably co

Corporation Ass

te

th Othves to be a

n previous v

wing guidanc

uidelines (19

ual (2002 Edon;

s for Water

by the larger most providesset useful liration, Weste

ART for Syd

ised in Tabletogether with

s from Financ

r Water Corporation

WA

0 3-200

3-150

1-85

2-151

10-150

ata include mobile

and State Waonsistent wit

sets

her Agadopted by

valuations in

ce material:

994 and 200

dition) - it sh

Supply and

Australian wed very broaives provideern Australia

dney Catchm

e 5.1 and prh useful lives

cial Statemen

Seq Water QLD

SC

15-150 102

40-80 11

3-10 21

51

1

plant which wo

ater’s asset th that used b

gencieSWC, Atkin

Australia;

01 editions)

hould be note

d Sewerage

water utilitiesad ranges ford in the fina were quite c

ment Authority

resented in ds accessed fr

ts for Useful

CA SydneWate

00-00

200

0-00

50-10

20-00

25-40

50-50

65-14

00 150

uld therefore ha

register indicby other Aus

es ns/Cardno re

Dept of Env

ed that no g

Schemes, N

s. A numberr a very limit

ancial statemcomprehensi

y (Worley Pa

detail in Approm other so

Lives

ey er

GoulbuMurraWate

Up to 2

00

0 2-10

40

40-12

ave low useful li

cates that Sstralian water

18

eviewed the

vironment &

uidance has

NSW Public

r of financialted range of

ments for theive; and

arsons, June

pendix A. Aources.

urn ay er

WaterCareNZ

200 189

68

0

79

20

ves

tate Water’sr authorities.

8

e

&

s

c

l f e

e

A

s

Review of the


Tthaa

O

Tchmm

R

Tmthempoainma

6 Draft Natio

Weighted Avera


The analysis he range 10average reguand civil work

Other appro

The Nationalcapacity or dhistorically apmedium termmaintain to a

Regulatory a

The regulatomains and sehe expenditexpenditure maintenance plan. The oneor depreciatioa realistic denternational maintenance approach.

onal Water In

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

shows that 00 to 200 yeulatory asset ks is in the ra

aches

Water Initiadepreciation pplied the lat

m given the good condit

asset lives i

ory approachewers is to ature to maiis termed acosts norm

e annual chaon. This appepreciation c

accounting costs over

nitiative Prici

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

in general aears. The on

life is 60 yeange 100 to 2

ative6 identifwith the anntter approachuncertaintie

tion and perfo

n the UK

h to assets wassume that intain assetan infrastruc

mally over a arge is maderoach was acharge. This

standards. a medium t

ng Principles

Corporation Ass

te

average assene exception

ears although200 years.

fies two appnuity approach. The annus of the lifeormance in t

with long livthey will rems in good

cture renewa20 year pere to reflect bpplied to refl

s is a regulaThe appro

term period,

s

sets

et lives for dn is the Sydh the reporte

proaches to ch or RAB B

uity approache of dams athe long term

es such as main in perpcondition is

al charge ariod based oboth capital mlect the unceatory approaoach is aki

but within t

dams and asney Catchm

ed asset life f

address the Building Bloch may be an and structurem.

dams and apetuity and ths equivalent

and represenon the agenmaintenanceertainties of aach only andn to the athe overall b

ssociated strment Authorit

for dams, em

loss of servck approach.option to co

es and the a

associated what, in the mt to deprecnts the avecy’s asset m

e and asset casset age in d is not con

annuity methbuilding bloc

19

uctures is inty where thembankments

vice delivery. IPART hasnsider in theapproach to

works, watermedium term,ciation. Thisrage capital

managementconsumptiondetermining

nsistent withhod, settingck regulatory

9

n e s

y s e o

r

s l t n g h g y

Review of the


Ap

Weighted Avera


ppend

age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

dix A –

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

– ComAss

Corporation Ass

te

mparisset Liv

sets

son oves

of Dessignat

20

ted

0

Revie

50883

Chan

Rese

Repe

Lago

Asse

Bores

Dams

ew of the Weighted Av

375/Review of the We

BoreFlowmeInstrumePipe woPump &SwitchbValvesAccess Building

Dam Civ

Dam EmElectricaDestratiFences InstrumeIntake T

Mechan

Pipe woRecreatSCADASpillwaySpillwayTelemet Valves

nnels ChannePump &StructurCivil - stControl MechanAccess DisinfecLevel In

Mechan

MetalwoMetersPipe woRoads &Roof - SSignageStructur

Structur

SwitchbTelemetValves

rvoirs

eater Towers

oons

t Type Compo

s

s

verage Asset Life of St

eighted Average Asset

eterentation

ork& Motorboard

Roadgs

vil Works

mbankmentalfication System(Security) and Gatesentation

Tower

nical

orktion facilities

Ay Civil Worksy Gatestry

el & Motorretructure& Monitor

nical & ElectricalLadders & Handrail

ction Dosingndicator

nical (Pumps)

ork

ork& DrainageSteele, Fencing & Landscapere (concrete)

re (steel)

boardtry

onent

tate Water Corporation

t Life of State Water C

20-6010-2010-2050-8020-4020-2530-5030-5040-60

100-200

150-20020-2525-3015-3010-20

80-100

10-40

50-8020-40Oct-15

100-15060-10010-2030-50

80-15020-40

50-10060-8010-2010-2020-4010-2010-20

10-40

20-4010-2050-8030-5025-6015-30

60-100

25-60

20-2510-2030-50

RecTypic

Recommended Useful Life Range

n Assets

Corporation Assets.doc

50 50-801010 1050 50-8020 15-252030 25-503060

200

200 150-20020 15-253030 2510 10

100

25 15-25

80 50-803010 10

10010010 1040 25-50

100 15020 15-2560 6080102025 252020

20 15-25

2515 1550 50-80304015 2580 60

60 60

2010 1030 25-50

commended cal Useful Life TMP Guidelines**

c

2

2

50-100 50

2

50-100 215-25 2

25

15-25 2

65-95

15-25 12

2

60-7015-2515-25 2

3

25 2

15-25 865-95 6550-80

2550-80

50-80

15-2515-25 1

SydneCorp*

International Infrastructure Management

Manual***

5-40

5-30

0-100 10-100

200 200/100

200 200/1005-30 20-50

5-40 20-100

140

0-155-40150 1005-30

100

5-40

3-12

5-40

8-145-140100

150 75-100

0-15

Sydney Catchment Authority

ey Water poration

Sydney Catchment Authority (Worley Parsons Review)

20-3010-15

60-8025-30

20-25

10-100 50-70

70-10025 20-25

20-25

25

60-80

10-15

10-1520-25

70-10020-25

70-10070-100

15-4520-25

15-25

25-30

60-80

Min 4020-25

70-100

70-100

10-1520-25

NSW PubWorks Depa State Water

Corporation

100-200Wause200

0 200

Typ40 f

0 5-15

00

Typ40 f

0 Stee

0

0 Thinhav

Comblic rtment

tercare dams have an average eful life of 189 years (as per the 07 Annual Report)

pically 25, but could be as high as for large well maintained assets

pically 20, but could be as high as for large well maintained assets

el roof

n walled steel reservoirs may ve significantly lower lives

mment

21

Revie

50883

Weirs

* Tota** Tot*** In

Wate

Wate

River

ew of the Weighted Av

375/Review of the We

ElectricLifting G

Mechan

MetalwPipe woStructuAsbestCast iroDuctile

Mild ste

PolyethuPVCWater mWater mValves Valves Water MTunnelsBuildingDisinfeElectricLifting GMechan

Mechan

Metalw

MetersPipe woRoads SignagStructuSurge PSwitchbTelemeValves

s Weir

al Management Planning Gguidelintal Management Planning Guidelinternational Infrastructure Managem

er Pump Stations

er Mains & Fittings

r Intakes

verage Asset Life of St

eighted Average Asset

calGear

nical (pumps)

workork

ure (concrete) os cement (AC)on cement lined (CICL)iron cement lined (DICL)

eel cement lined (MSCL)

hylene

mainsmains (above ground)(isolating)(control))

Meterss & conduitsgction EquipmentcalGearnical (generator)

nical (pumps)

work

ork& Drainagee, Fencing & Landscape

ure (concrete) Protection Vesselboardetry

nes 1994, DERM Qldnes 2001, DERM Qldment Manual 2002 - section 3.10

tate Water Corporation

t Life of State Water C

20-2520-40

10-40

20-4050-80

60-10040-6070-80

80-100

70-80

60-8060-80

25-3510-1510-15

100-15040-6010-2020-2520-4010-30

10-40

20-40

10-2050-8030-5015-30

60-10020-4020-2510-2030-50

75-150

n Assets

Corporation Assets.doc

20 15-2520

20 15-25

2550 50-8080 6060 60*80 80*80 80*

80 50*

60 50*60 50*

30 25-5015 1515 1510060 602020 15-252020 15-25

20 15-25

25

1550 50-803015 2580 60402010 1030 25-50100 50-125

c

15-25

25

65-9550

65-95

15-25

50-100

15-25

15-25

25

15-2565-9550-80

2550

15-2515-25

25-30

25-40

65-140100

65-140 50150

8-14150 100

50-100

25-30

25-40

25-40

8-1465-140

100

100

10-15

100 100

2030

25

106040

60

208

40

2030

25

1060

2040

1020

70

0-250-40

5-30

0-150-800-50

0-80

0-258-12

0-50

0-250-40

5-30

0-150-80

0-250-50

0-150-300-100 50-100

Typically 20, but could be as high40 for large well maintained pump

Where a well maintained Cathodiprotection is installed useful life could be incresed by 30 years

Typically 20, but could be as high40 for large well maintained pump

Ancillaries - eg ladders, platformcovers etc

22

h as ps

ic

h as ps

s,

Review of the


Weighted Avera


age Asset Life o

hted Average Asc

of State Water C

sset Life of Stat

Corporation Ass

te

sets

233

Atkins Limited Woodcote Grove Ashley Road Epsom Surrey KT18 5BW England

[email protected]

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Review of the Weighted Average Asset Life of State Water ...€¦ · Draft Final for Issu Purpose...

Documents

Transcript of Review of the Weighted Average Asset Life of State Water ...€¦ · Draft Final for Issu Purpose...