Capítulo 3. Branding integrado en las marcas
3.1. Branding interno
Scores were entered into a scoring sheet and weighted scores calculated for each option. Final weighted scores per option were discussed by the group. These are presented in Section 9.1 of this document.
8.2
Qualitative assessment - criteria and weighting
The previous section has described the overall methodology applied to the
qualitative assessment. Workshop participants agreed to the final definitions of the assessment categories, criteria, and definitions which are presented in Table 9.
Table 9 Qualitative assessment criteria
Categories of
criteria Assessment criteria What the criteria mean (definitions) Technical /
Engineering Is easy to design and construct
This criterion captures the complexity of the design and construction of the future scheme. A solution is deemed ‘better’ if it is less complex using relatively proven technology. This includes consideration of the time to construct and number of pump stations required.
The length of the pipe network was not considered a critical element with regard to complexity.
Adapts easily to changes required to accommodate varying CSG water flows in the medium – long term
This criterion indicates how well the implemented scheme accommodates future water changes.
Changes could include different CSG water flows (an increase or a decrease) and the ability to expand the proposed infrastructure.
An additional aspect includes the ease of scaling back infrastructure when water flows diminish or disappear (e.g. towards the end of a scheme).
Minimises need for third party
dependencies
Third party dependencies refer to engineering modifications required to accommodate the needs of a third party, either at the upstream point or at the downstream point, e.g. an upstream third party dependency could be the engineering works for another CSG operator seeking to feed water into the scheme. A downstream example could be the engineering modifications irrigators would need to make to extract water to reflect current extraction and usage patterns.
The ‘best’ solution is the one that minimises risks and the number of third party dependencies, as well as pressure put onto third party users (e.g. the need for them to implement additional infrastructure).
Strategic Aligns with the Murray- Darling Basin Outcomes
This element of the criterion focusses on the opportunities that options present to meet the management objectives and outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin, which include:
The basin as a whole; The environment;
Water quality and salinity; Long-term average SDLs; and Water trading.
e.g. this criterion examines whether the options: Improve security for every water use;
Use CSG water in a way that optimises the economy; Ensure that ecological values stay healthy in the context
of climate change;
Decreases the risk of water resources becoming unfit for use;
Help to implement water recovery measures (such as buy-back and upgrading infrastructure);
Increase access to water resources;
Help communities and irrigators to become adapted to less available water; and
Help to make water trading/market more efficient and effective.
Categories of
criteria Assessment criteria What the criteria mean (definitions)
Is aligned strategically with CSG industry in relation to water issues
CSG companies must ensure that they comply with
Government legislation and policies for the use of CSG water. This means that options will have to comply with the
Queensland Government CSG Water Management Policy: injection of water into depleted aquifers for recharge purposes; substitution for existing water entitlements; supplementary water for irrigation schemes; and other uses. Preferred options are those with less transmission losses. Options which align strategically with CSG water industry needs will provide practical and efficient solutions for the maximum beneficial use of CSG water.
The CSG industry must also minimise the potential for backlash from the community towards their operations. This criterion will assess whether the options help to improve the community’s and the irrigators’ perception of CSG operations in the region.
Environmental
/ Sustainability Supports the long term sustainability of the CCA
This criterion measures the impact of options on the long term sustainability of the CCA, which is measured by the extent to which options contribute to restoring water levels within the CCA.
Increased water quantities in the CCA are considered a positive impact on the environment; water available for the region and the community in the long term; positive impact on the Murray-Darling Basin; and fewer risks to the
environment and community in the context of climate change. Minimises impact on the environment during construction and operation
This criterion refers to the potential environmental footprint of each option. This impact can be measured by the extent of the infrastructure needed, such as length and size of pipelines (the larger the network, the larger the impact); number of injection sites (the more injection sites, the larger the impact), and required equipment and sites during construction (a large number of vehicles and equipment will affect the environment adversely).
Additionally the energy required to operate the network is another indicator (i.e. the more energy the greater the carbon footprint).
Social /
Stakeholders Minimises risk of negative public perception by Condamine irrigators
If a scheme to transfer water to the CCA (whether through injection or substitution) proceeds, Condamine irrigators will to be impacted (whether positively or negatively).
Minimising the risk of negative perception by this stakeholder group will greatly benefit the implementation of all options. Minimises risk of negative public perception by the broader community
The broader community covers all community stakeholders with the exception of the Condamine irrigators. The concerns of the broader community are discussed in the Stakeholder section of this report.
Issues which require consideration include the perception of inequity if CSG water is transported from where it is produced or if the community as a whole does not benefit from its use. Issues of perceived impacts on water quality are also relevant.
Categories of
criteria Assessment criteria What the criteria mean (definitions)
Meets the needs of CSG producers
The CSG industry is focused on ensuring the long term viability of their operations. Elements to take into account to determine if this criteria is met could include:
Relative ease of establishing the scheme; Public perceptions of the scheme;
Ability to meet their legislative obligations; and Requirements with respect to scheme operation and complexity.
Management /
Administration Minimises complexity and risks in establishing and operating schemes (internal)
This criterion adopts an internal point of view with regard to the complexity and the risks in establishing and operating schemes. It focuses on the need for new and/or changed administrative arrangements between irrigators, CSG companies and/or Government. It covers aspects including: Resourcing required to operate and maintain the
infrastructure; and
Internal governance to ensure contractual undertakings are managed.
Minimises the need for third party
governance/ control (external)
This criterion adopts an external point of view with regard to the complexity of the risks in establishing and operating schemes.
Issues which require consideration include the need for external governance arrangements to administer and monitor aspects of an option. Legislative/ Regulatory requirements Minimises complexity of legislative changes and regulatory approvals required
Regulatory approvals and potential need for legislative changes will vary according to scheme options. Preferred options (rated higher by this criterion) are those which minimise the regulatory approvals and extent of legislative changes required.
Potential changes include regulations for schemes, legislation, institutional arrangements, land planning and environmental approvals.
Each of the assessment criteria was then weighted to reflect its relative importance and alignment with the main objective of the study. The agreed weighting is presented in Table 10.
Table 10 Assessment weighting for each of the qualitative assessment criteria
Category Assessment criteria Weighting Category
Weighting Technical /
Engineering Is easy to design and construct 5% 15%
Adapts easily to changes required to accommodate varying co-produced CSG water flows in the medium – long term
5% Minimises need for 3rd party dependencies 5%
Strategic Aligns with the Murray-Darling Basin Outcomes 10% 15% Is aligned strategically with industry in relation to
co-produced CSG water issues 5%
Environmental
/ Sustainability Supports the long term sustainability of the CCA 25% 30%
Minimises impact on the environment during
construction and operation 5%
Social /
Stakeholders Minimises risk of negative public perception by irrigators 5% 15% Minimises risk of negative public perception by the
community 5%
Meets the needs of CSG operators 5%
Management /
Administration Minimises complexity and risks in establishing and operating schemes (internal) 6% 12% Minimises the need for third party governance /
control (external) 6%
Legislative/ Regulatory requirements
Minimises complexity of legislative changes
required and regulatory approvals 13% 13%
TOTAL 100%
8.3
Quantitative (financial) assessment methodology
In addition to the qualitative analysis, a detailed financial analysis was undertaken for each option (and associated sub-options). This financial (quantitative)
assessment measured which option had the most financial merit.
For the options considered in this business case, financial merit can be defined in two ways, either the highest return on investment, measured by the lowest investment per megalitre (ML) of water delivered to the CCA; or the lowest overall project cost.
Because the primary objective of the proposed aquifer recharge scheme options is the long-term sustainability of the CCA (maximum volume of water replenished), the best indicator for financial merit was considered to be the return on investment measured by the lowest cost per ML of water delivered.
The analysis addressed whole-of-life costs (capital and operational) to ensure that the whole-of-life costs of each option were considered and not just the initial investment required. Quantifiable benefits such as improvements to water levels in the CCA and the resulting benefits to the viability of the region and
environmental improvements were not considered in the financial analysis as they are difficult to quantify from a cost perspective.
The quantitative assessment adopted the methodology in Figure 32 to assess the financial merit of each option. The financial result of each option (and sub-option) is compared to the Baseline Substitution Option.
Figure 32 High level overview of quantitative (financial assessment) methodology
Net Present Value (NPV) is the financial measure that is typically used to assess the financial merit of options in a business case. NPV is defined as the difference
between the present value of the future cash flows from an investment and the amount of investment.
In this case, as all options have negative cash flows i.e. there are no identified revenue streams; this means the NPV result has little meaning. It was therefore replaced by a more meaningful measure - the project’s Net Present Cost (NPC). NPC represents the overall cost of the project across its lifetime in today’s dollar
value. The option with the smallest NPC is the strongest from a financial
perspective. The following financial indicators were used to evaluate the options: • NPC - the total NPC of each option, including discounted capital and
operating costs;
• NPC per ML - the NPC of each option per ML of water delivered; and • Sensitivity testing - the NPC of each option taking into consideration key
project risks.
Excel model
e.g. water volumes STEP 2
Build financial model
STEP 3