## Oil Pump Price Calculation (OPPC) Model – an Excel Model

Oil Pump Price Calculation (OPPC) Model – an Excel Model

• Calibrate Model by Calculating % Gross Margin (%GM) from Pump Price Less All Costs:
• %GM = {[PP – OPSF – TPLC * (1 – % biofuel)] / (1 + VAT2) – [(TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF + HF + DM]} / {TPLC * (1 – % biofuel)}
• Calculate Pump Price (PP) using the % Gross Margin and Other Cost Inputs:
• PP = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) + [TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * %GM + (TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF + HF + DM] * (1 + %VAT2) + OPSF

• Calculation of TPLC and PP
• MOPS\$ = Mean of Platts Singapore (imported cost of fuel)
• FOB\$ = Freight on Board in US\$ = MOPS * 300,000
• FRT\$ = Ocean Freight in US\$ = FOB\$ * 2.00%
• INS\$ = Ocean Insurance in US\$ = FOB\$ * 4.00%
• CIF\$ = Cargo, Insurance & Freight in US\$ = FOB\$ + FRT\$ + INS\$
• CIF = CIF in Pesos = CIF\$ * (FOREX, P/\$)
• CD = Customs Duty = CIF * 3.00% (now zero due to ASEAN AFTA)
• BF= Brokerage Fee = 5,300 + (CIF – 200,000) * 0.00125
• BC = Bank Charges = CIF * 0.00125
• AC = Arrastre Charge (gasoline) = 122 * (0.75 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
• AC = Arrastre Charge (diesel) = 122 * (0.80 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
• WC = Wharfage Charge (gasoline) = 36.65 * (0.75 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
• WC = Wharfage Charge (diesel) = 36.65 * (0.80 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
• IPF = Import Processing Fee = 1,000 per import entry
• CDS = Customs Documentary Stamp = 256 per import entry
• ET = Excise Tax (gasoline) = 4.35 * 158.9868 * 300,000
• ET = Excise Tax (diesel) = 1.63 * 158.9868 * 300,000
• LC = Landed Cost = CIF + CD + BF + BC + AC + WC + IPF + CDS + ET
• VAT1 (on import) = 10% * Landed Cost (Nov 2005 – Jan 2000)
•                             = 12% * Landed Cost (Feb 2006 – present)
• TPLC (Tax Paid Landed Cost) = LC + VAT1 (imports) = LC * (1 + %VAT1)
• TPLC (P/L) = TPLC / (300,000 * 158.9868)
• Summary to BOC = CD + IPF + CDS + ET + VAT1
• Summary to BOC (P/L) = Summary to BOC / (300,000 * 158.9868)
• OCGM = Oil Company Gross Margin (P/L) = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * % gross margin
• OOCC = Other Oil Company Costs (P/L) = (TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF
• TS = Transshipment = 0.38 P/L (for oil tanker ships and barges)
• PL = Pipeline = 0.000 P/L (for FPIC)
• DE = depot = 0.27 P/L (gasoline)
•                    = 0.28 P/L (diesel)
• BF = Biofuels = 10% * (P/L of ETHANOL) = 2.63 P/L (gasoline)
•                        =  2% * (P/L of CME Biodiesel) = 1.28 P/L (diesel)
• HF = Hauler’s Fee (P/L) = 0.21 P/L (gasoline and diesel)
• DM = Dealer’s Margin (P/L) = 1.72 (gasoline)
•                                                 = 1.47 (diesel)
• TLC = Total Local Costs (P/L) = OCGM + OOCC + HF + DM
• VAT2 (local costs) = 10% * Total Local Cost (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006)
•                                = 12% * Total Local Cost (Feb 2006 – present)
• PP = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) + [TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * %GM + (TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF + HF + DM] * (1 + %VAT2) + OPSF

The pump price (PP) component called the oil company gross margin is given by:

• OCGM (oil company gross margin) = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * %GM
•  = fixed O&M + variable O&M + marketing expense + depreciation + profit margin

The OCGM is used to cover the fixed and variable costs of the oil company plus the marketing expenses and depreciation cost of its invested capital assets and provide profit margin that recovers its capital investments and thus determine the IRR of the investment made by the oil company:

• (Capital Investment) = sum ( profit margin(t) * sales volume(t) / (1 + IRR)^t )
• Thank You !!!
• Prepared by:
• Marcial T. Ocampo
• TWG Member, IOPRC 2012

## An Integrated Strategy for Asset Valuation and Disposal of Surplus and Redundant Power Generation Equipment

An Integrated Strategy for Asset Valuation and Disposal of Surplus and Redundant Power Generation Equipment

Mike Craigie

Managing Director

Craigie Engineering Sales & Services Ltd.

SYNOPSIS

This paper outlines the recommended strategy for the valuation, marketing and disposal of surplus power plant.

In addition to assessing the overall extent and varied sources of such available equipment, the paper also looks closely at the various options which a utility can adopt when disposing of such plant, and also looks at the merits and potential difficulties to be considered when investigating the feasibility of adopting all or part of such equipment or plant into a new power project development.

A preliminary equipment/asset valuation guide is also included for discussion. The paper also takes a look at the industry’s changing attitude to the use of such plants, from the point of view of clients, OEM’s, owners and asset disposal managers.

SURPLUS EQUIPMENT:

The availability of ‘surplus’, canceled order, or ‘advanced order’ equipment at attractive cost and immediate delivery, is a worldwide phenomenon which has surprisingly few restrictions on capacity.

From our experiences over the past 20 years or so (while investigating the availability of such equipment), it is rare in fact to enter into discussions with any OEM, utility, major oil company, or large industrial group, and not find someone who does not have, or has had, ‘surplus’ unused equipment available from some project which was canceled, frustrated, or built ‘on spec’ and never found a buyer.

The term “surplus” equipment is most frequently used to avoid the pre-conceptions of some clients (and OEM’s) that what we are offering is basically someone else’s scrap:

Traditionally, up until the past few years at least, most of the leading manufacturers (OEM’s) would only consider offering refurbished equipment of their own manufacture, and even then only when their client could not afford the capital cost of new plant, or they could not convince the client that new equipment was a better option.

Most manufacturers have now dramatically changed their attitude to surplus equipment, with many more OEM’s now even purchasing, refurbishing and selling/renting other OEM’s equipment.  This trend is witnessed by GE’s strategic acquisition of GTS (Greenwich Turbine Services) and UNC-Metcalf, and Stewart & Stevenson (with Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Solar and now EGT/Ruston overhaul experience/capabilities).

Having now seen the successful implementation of several projects using surplus equipment, even the hardest of attitudes among clients (e.g. in the oil industry and with IPP developers) has changed remarkably and the general market perception is a move toward recycling and re-use wherever possible/practicable.

SURPLUS EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY

The reasons for such equipment becoming available are varied:

1. Political or Environmental:
1. The 2 x 350MW oil-fired units from the ‘Shimaal’ project which were canceled due to Iraq’s excursion into Kuwait.
2. Many aborted nuclear plants in Germany, Italy, Puerto Rico, Philippines, etc.
3. 300MW CCGT Power Barges for Pakistan cancelled by new government.
4. 2 x 110MW hydro/pumped storage plants for Northern Ireland cancelled due to security concerns for the site.
5. 8 x 1250MW nuclear plant cancelled by TVA/US Government in mid 1980’s

Total estimate:                    20,000MW

1. Availability of Fuel/Grid Constraints:
1. The 4 x 660MW coal-fired units canceled by ENEL when their government made a policy decision not to increase the country’s dependence on imported coal.
2. The 2 x 300MW units in Northern Ireland which have been unused due to their oil-fired design and reduced electrical demand.
3. The 2 x Frame 9E gas turbines from cancelled re-powering project.
4. 2 X 9MW diesels built as speculative/’back door’ IPP, with no PPA (Power Purchase Agreement).
5. 2 x 150MW V94.2 gas turbines which can’t be run due to severe grid constraints.
6. Several CCGT plants in India (6FA and 9FA) which do not have access to gas

Total estimate:                    20,000MW

1. Overestimated Load Growth or Demand:
2. 250MW Marsden B oil-fired power plant in New Zealand, mothballed since 1980.
3. The 5 x 100MW coal-fired units in RSA which have seen little use due to large nuclear plant and larger coal-fired units running on base load.
4. Many similar large coal and orimulsion power plants in UK now available as not competitive (under power bid process) with nuclear and cogen/CCGT plants.
5. The 25MW backpressure steam turbine generator in Eastern Europe never installed due to cheaper power coming on line from adjacent large coal-fired station.
6. The 400MW coal-fired unit at Salt River in USA on which construction was terminated due to reduced load growth.
7. The 230MW combined cycle/cogen plant in Wisconsin which was cancelled by WEPCO when their load growth was covered by alternative power sources.
8. Many thousands of MW of CCGT and open cycle GT plants in Italy, UK, Netherlands, Germany, etc which are now redundant due to reduces energy consumption and move to wind energy.

Total Estimate:   30,000MW

1. Industrial/IPP’s with Financial Problems
2. The 3 x 4 MW Centaur gas turbines in chp/cogen application for ceramics factory in Indonesia,
3. 6FA cogen/CCGT extraction unit in Italy which had steam to paper mill which has now shut down.
4. 64 MW condensing turbine generator in Eastern Europe from canceled project.
5. 4 x 12 MW HFO-fired diesel engines from cancelled shipbuilding project
6. Many paper mill cogeneration applications in UK, Finland, France, Italy, which shut down due to paper mills not being competitive with Far East

Total Estimate:   10,000MW

Availability / Delivery:

This is not only a major factor favoring the use of cancelled-order, advance-order and unused equipment, but in many cases the available used equipment may already be overhauled or removed into storage ready for overhaul and rapid delivery, well in advance of corresponding delivery schedules for equivalent new equipment.

Cost / Economics:

The greatest advantage of utilizing ‘surplus’ equipment is of course usually the capital cost, but this option can not only be most financially advantageous, but also means that the equipment can be commissioned and ‘on line’ generating power (and steam/heat) within a very short period of time, leading to considerable savings in a number of areas:

1. Construction cost is reduced due to lower overheads during the shorter period,
2. Interest during construction (IDC) is reduced in direct proportion, and
3. The developing company’s overheads in an IPP situation are also minimized to the extent that “up-front” profit can be increased by inflating the cost of the installed plant in line with the maximum installed cost which will satisfy the lead financing agency.
4. In addition to these is the considerable benefit of early revenue.

For example, if one was to place an order on a 4MW cogen plant and wait 12 months for delivery with 6 months to deliver and install, a client purchasing a similar surplus unit with foundation designs and wiring diagrams modified easily to suit their site conditions could have the unit installed and commissioned in 3 – 4 months.

During this advantageous 14 month difference, that same plant could generate power alone worth over US\$ 1 Million, (excluding the extra profit from steam sales) at 2.5 cents/kWh, and this is only a 4 Mw plant.

Imagine then the comparative savings in having a 300MW CCGT plant on line 14 months or more ahead of schedule. (US\$ 75 Million in earned revenue using the same 2.5 cents/kWh)

Note:  Most modern turbine packages (e.g. Frame 6, Taurus or W251) are either 50 or 60 Hz machines with only a gearbox alteration required.  In fact the 60 Hz alternators at 13,800 V (1800 or 3600 RPM) are the same as used in the 50 Hz machines and re-adjusted on the voltage regulators to give 11,000 V at the relevant 50 Hz speeds (1500 or 3000 RPM)

Retained Equity

The other significant, and possibly the most important feature of utilizing such immediately available and ‘surplus equipment’ is that the owners will often be willing to retain part equity in any viable IPP development, thereby making overall project finance more accessible.

It is of course more attractive from their point of view to take a steady return on a retained equity/investment on the plant over several years, rather than continue to absorb the often substantial costs of storing the completed equipment at the OEM’s (original equipment manufacturers) factory and see its residual or resale value diminish at an even more alarming rate.

Valuation of the available plant:

At this stage it may be worth making a brief study of the likely cost or value of such surplus equipment. – Refer to Graph A

Firstly, let’s look at a typical depreciation in any type of power plant (diesel, gas or steam turbine) and the value of regular major overhauls and “zero hour” overhauls – Graph A.

Secondly, if we make the assumption (as most accountants would do) that straight-line depreciation of power plant takes place over 10, 15 or even 25 years.

From our own past experience and our ongoing involvement in the valuation, marketing, and sourcing of suitable surplus equipment, we have found it best (i.e. closest match), in the case of gas turbines particularly, to assume the designed 20 year life span of the equipment.

“Negative Equity” – Refer to Graph B

Obviously, the recent and substantial reductions in the delivered cost of new equipment have had a significant impact on the inherent value of both used and unused power plant. (e.g. Frame 6 units sold for US\$ 10-11 Million 7-8 years ago, then dropped to US\$ 7-8 M with over-supply 3-4 years ago, and now are listed (GTW Handbook 2001-2) at around US\$ 13 Million.

This has given rise to the most unlikely scenario about 4 years ago, where the equipment value (in book terms), which an owner believed his equipment was worth, was substantially more than the real cost of similar/identical replacement units.

Aero-derivative Gas Turbines – Graph C

With this in mind we would note the anticipated selling price (FOB) for a 15 year old Centaur T4000, in operating condition, with basic/operational spare parts and full maintenance history, recent overhaul, and all ancillary equipment (coolers, inlet/exhaust, etc.), of around US\$ 550,000.

Industrial Gas Turbines – Refer to Graph D

Here we have chosen to highlight the estimated cost for a 10 year old GE Frame 6 (38 Mw), again delivered FOB, with operational spares, auxiliaries, recent overhaul, and full maintenance history, at around US\$ 6.5 M.

Proven Reliability/Availability

With most equipment, which has already been installed and operated, a full maintenance and operational history is usually available.

Technical Service Bulletins will also be available, highlighting the changes in maintenance and operating procedures, which have been recommended over the years for best performance; based on operating experiences within not only the existing plant but all other similar plants worldwide.  User symposiums will also have identified specific areas for concern and a wealth of historical documentation can usually be easily accessed.

Insurability

New equipment manufacturers (OEM’s) continue to drive forward at a relentless pace to achieve that extra 0.5% increased efficiency and/or that 1% reduction in emissions, which also employing new combustion techniques, such as dry low NOx combustion.

These efforts often lead to reduced flame instability and less margin for error in T1 and T2 temperatures, giving cause for concern, particularly now by the insurers of such plants.

Overhaul & Maintenance Facilities/Support:

Another major benefit of surplus equipment, which has been installed within the market for several years, is that there will be many sources of supply, not only for spare parts and overhaul but also for upgrade and experienced Operation & Maintenance (O & M) contractors.

There will also usually be a wealth of supporting services available for replacement blades, coatings, upgrade/replacement of control systems, vibration monitoring equipment, etc.

Valuation & Disposal Strategy

We typically recommend that surplus plant owners give themselves the maximum period of marketing prior to final decommissioning or dismantling. This then gives them a longer and more realistic period of finding the ‘right buyer with the appropriate project application.

With most owners preferring to sell such plant on an as-is, where-is basis, the frequently onerous cost of decommissioning and dismantling can be avoided, as this would then typically be borne by the purchaser, further saving the owner substantial costs.

Prior to entering into the marketing phase the most important criteria for successful disposal is to set realistic and attainable recovery/selling prices which match other surplus and new equipment in terms of price, scope and availability, with reasonable balancing of residual and elapsed lifetime. Allowance has also to be made for performance, spare part availability, terms of purchase, location and accessibility of site, etc.

Many brokers or marketing agents will attempt to secure lucrative contracts, which often require burdensome provision of project and on-site managers, advertising costs, with little or no margin for success-based incentives.

CESS usually recommend, and prefer to enter into, contracts which allow recovery of some or all of the hard costs, but with all of the profit-based elements of the contract linked directly to the success in finding the right end-user, willing to purchase at the best terms and highest recoverable cost to the owner.

Summary & Conclusions:

Unused and used but serviceable or overhauled power plants are available from the smaller 1 – 2MW gas and steam turbine units, right up to 1200MW, and the availability of such equipment is rarely a reflection of the lack of demand or unsuitability of the equipment, but can more commonly be linked to a lack of market knowledge of what is available.

# How Do We Stabilize The Grid With Higher Penetration Of Renewables?

Chris James

The energy industry is in the process of understanding the full scope of renewable energy on the grid.

As more renewables are added onto the grid, the stability of the grid is generally decreasing. This is because the continuously rotating mass connected to the grid (turbines and generators on the production end) inherently stabilizes grid frequency. When those systems are taken offline and replaced by renewable energy systems, frequency stabilization becomes an increasing challenge.

Coal-fired power plants and gas turbines are examples. These systems have a lot of mass, and when they are rotating, they store energy. In the past, these systems have been beneficial for the grid because they rotate continuously and are difficult to slow down. If a large load makes a demand on the grid, say an industrial plant turns on a large device that pulls a lot of power, it still takes time to slow down these big machines so they may be able to, at least for short periods of time, source extra power into the grid.

This presents a challenge with clean alternatives. Normally, a solar panel system can’t generate more than what it’s already producing; the system is designed to always run at its maximum capacity. Wind turbines are similar. It would seem that there’s a lot of rotating mass in a wind turbine, but compared to a fast, massive traditional turbine, the wind turbine rotates slowly and doesn’t actually have that much energy in its rotating mass. Also, the clean energy systems being interconnected to the grid must synchronize with the existing grid frequency rather than drive the grid frequency. If you draw a lot of power for a short period of time, or overload the grid, the grid frequency starts lowering, and current clean energy systems can’t compensate for that. This is where ultracapacitors, also called supercapacitors, can be implemented to help compensate for high power transient loads.

The majority of events which destabilize the grid are fairly short. Studies have shown that a majority of grid disruptions are less than a few seconds long. That’s an indicator that destabilization events that are happening on the grid can be stabilized with ultracapacitors, which specialize in short-term, very high power, lower energy content storage.

If one measures the grid frequency very precisely, an ultracapacitor paired with a very large power inverter could push power back into the grid or pull power depending on the grid frequency swings, creating a “virtual rotating mass.” It also may be that a centralized approach will be used where operation centers for the grid dispatch energy storage as needed for stabilization.

The grid is made up of different segments, and there are some that locally have an abundance of power and some need power to be sourced from afar, as power has to be provided where the loads are. In some cases, centralized operation centers may best be able to deal with a power deficit or overabundance by commanding storage systems to come online to compensate for a grid event. On the other hand, since some control decisions have to happen very quickly to be effective, some storage systems may run themselves by self-monitoring a grid segment and reacting to changes. It’s likely that ultracapacitor-based stabilization systems will need to be autonomous like this, because they must react very fast to be effective. I imagine we will need to employ a variety of energy storage systems to meet our needs. This is a new area for the industry, so different approaches are still under exploration.

The traditional grid is self-stabilizing to a high degree. As clean energy sources that are variable continue to be added to the grid, it will be necessary to provide additional stabilization such as adding large-scale energy storage. It’s general industry knowledge that the lowest cost energy storage available is pumped hydroelectric storage. One problem with pumped hydroelectric storage is it can’t be turned on and off immediately. Time is required for spinning up/down these systems, and it seems that they also will need to be coupled with some sort of rapid stabilization.

Let’s say you’re using energy flowing directly from the wind and sun, and the turbines are off. What happens when you have another load? You will have to spin your turbines up. You need a short-term energy storage to ride through the increase in demand while you bring up the sources. It may be that you have battery systems that can achieve that. I think that ultracapacitors are poised to serve this application best in the long-term: If your lowest cost energy storage system doesn’t always source energy immediately, then you need something to bridge the gap, and ultracapacitors are in a good position to do just that.

The grid stability problem is going to stick around. It’s possible that the grid will need large ultracapacitor farms or other means to stabilize it. If stabilizing a grid fed by renewables is the goal, microcycling batteries may prove inefficient. Ultracapacitors, on the other hand, are designed for high cycle applications that require long life and are a viable option for stabilizing a renewables grid. I believe ultracapacitors will provide a very effective buffering solution as we increase the amount of clean energy technology that we employ.

This post was originally published by Maxwell Technologies and was reposted with permission.

## How to develop a consistent lotto winning strategy – trapping and wheeling

How to develop a consistent lotto winning strategy – trapping and wheeling

How to develop a consistent lotto winning strategy

The fundamental formula for gambling (FFG) provides the number of consecutive draws needed to repeat an outcome, and thus predict when an event will repeat at a given confidence level. For the lotto games played in the Philippines where 6 numbered lotto balls are picked by a lotto drawing machine, the number of consecutive draws (N) at 95% confidence level is shown below:

N = log (1 – DC) / log (1 – p)

The result is then rounded upwards (Nr) by adding 0.5 and rounded-off to zero decimal point to have a whole integer number:

The number of consecutive draws to monitor when a lotto number is expected to come out is shown below:

 FUNDAMENTAL FORMULA OF GAMBLING (FFG) N = log(1 – DC)/log(1 – p) DC 6/42 6/45 6/49 6/55 6/58 Number Draws 0.1429 0.1333 0.1224 0.1091 0.1034 of Wins 50% 5 5 6 7 7 3.00 67% 8 8 9 10 11 4.00 75% 9 10 11 13 13 4.50 83% 12 13 14 16 17 5.00 90% 15 17 18 20 22 5.40 93% 18 19 21 24 25 5.58 95% 20 21 23 26 28 5.70

The next step is to get the historical draws and count the number of times the lotto number came out and divide this historical appearances with the N values above.

This will give the expected draws the lotto number will come out in the consecutive Nr draws. And you know what, the resulting expected draws is 3.0 draws for all lotto games (6/42, 6/45, 6/49, 6/55, and 6/58) after having 20, 21, 23, 26, and 28 consecutive draws for the lotto games, respectively.

By dividing the total historical draws for the lotto game by the number of jackpot wins to-date, this ratio provides the frequency of a lotto wins:

6/42 = 1508 draws / 423 jackpot wins = 3.6 draws between jackpot wins

6/45 = 2473 draws / 502 jackpot wins = 4.9 draws between jackpot wins

6/49 = 2063 draws / 301 jackpot wins = 6.9 draws between jackpot wins

6/55 = 1176 draws / 70 jackpot wins = 16.8 draws between jackpot wins

6/58 = 309 draws / 10 jackpot wins = 30.9 draws between jackpot wins

From the above draws needed to have a jackpot hit, it shows that 6/42, 6/45 and 6/49 have the shortest interval between jackpot hits while 6/55 and 6/58 have much longer intervals between jackpot hits, thought their jackpot winning price are much higher at 6M, 9M, 16M, 30M and 50M, respectively.

Also, it can be noted that most jackpot hits have drawn numbers between 1 and 31 – the calendar days in one month. This shows that the betting population in the Philippines use divine prayers that the birthdays of their family and love ones will give them luck. When the lotto draw results in low numbers between 1 and 31, and with a lot of bettors using the birthdays to select their bets, the chance of those bets hitting the draw results is indeed high.

The following data shows the number of draws with numbers between 1 and 31:

6/42 = 1508 draws / 223 jackpot wins = 6.8 draws between jackpot wins

6/45 = 2473 draws / 248 jackpot wins = 10.0 draws between jackpot wins

6/49 = 2063 draws / 118 jackpot wins = 17.5 draws between jackpot wins

6/55 = 1176 draws / 36 jackpot wins = 32.7 draws between jackpot wins

6/58 = 309 draws / 8 jackpot wins = 38.6 draws between jackpot wins

When monitoring the number of consecutive draws N and comparing with the number of actual hits within the range of N, this will provide which numbers is most likely to emerge in the next draw.

In the case of 6/42 lotto game, lotto numbers with 1-3 appearance within N = 20 prior draws have 3.5, 1.7, 0.6 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

 0 0 0 0.0 1 3363 59 3.5 2 1656 29 1.7 3 532 9 0.6 4 122 2 0.1 5 10 0 6 2 0 7 0 0 5685 100 5.9

In the case of 6/45 lotto game, lotto numbers with 1-3 appearance within N = 21 prior draws have 3.2, 1.6, 0.6 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

 0 769 8 0.5 1 5274 54 3.2 2 2605 27 1.6 3 900 9 0.6 4 169 2 0.1 5 26 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 9743 100 5.9

In the case of 6/49 lotto game, lotto numbers with 0-3 appearance within N = 23 prior draws have 0.5, 3.3, 1.6, 0.5 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

 0 607 8 0.5 1 4388 55 3.3 2 2156 27 1.6 3 720 9 0.5 4 149 2 5 22 0 6 1 0 7 0 0 8043 100 5.9

In the case of 6/55 lotto game, lotto numbers with 1-3 appearance within N = 26 prior draws have 0.5, 3.3, 1.6, 0.6 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

 0 353 8 0.5 1 2470 54 3.3 2 1203 26 1.6 3 428 9 0.6 4 78 2 0.1 5 9 0 6 1 0 7 0 0 4542 100 5.9

In the case of 6/58 lotto game, lotto numbers with 0-3 appearance within N = 28 prior draws have 0.4, 3.3, 1.6, 0.5 for a total of 6.0 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

 0 79 7 0.4 1 625 56 3.3 2 298 27 1.6 3 93 8 0.5 4 25 2 0.1 5 1 0 6 0 0 7 1121 100 6.0

Aside from tracking the appearance within the N prior draws, it is important to observe that the total of the 6 numbers lie within a desired range based on historical performance and that there is a good balance or spread among odd (1, 3, 5, …) and even (2, 4, 6, …) lotto numbers and also low (1-21) and high (22-42) lotto numbers in the case of 6/42 lotto game. For other lotto games, the mid-point between 1 and 45, 1 and 49, 1 and 55 and 1 and 58 determines the low and high lotto numbers.

The desired sum of the 6 lotto numbers that constitute 80% of the winning draws are as follows:

 Lotto Min Ave Max 6/42 100 129 158 6/45 106 138 170 6/49 115 150 185 6/55 129 168 207 6/58 136 177 218

Finally, once you have trapped or selected the numbers using the above criteria of number of appearance in N prior draws, total historical hits of that number since the start of the lotto game, the sum of the 6 lotto numbers selected, and the balance between odd and even and low and high lotto numbers, the next step is to use lotto wheels that are available in the internet that are free or available for sale.

Among the most popular lotto wheels are:

12 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

18 Numbers In 42 Combinations

22 Numbers In 67 Combinations

8 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

8 Number Plan – Guaranteed 5/5

9 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

10 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

10 Number Plan

20 Number Plan – Guaranteed 3/6

However, based on experience and cost effectiveness (expected winnings from hitting 3, 4, 5 and 6 numbers divided by cost of the lotto tickets), the most cost-effective wheeling strategy is the “12 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4” which is a scaled down and cheaper version of betting “System 12”.

An example of the “12 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4” wheel is shown below:

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 30 23 28 36 9 5 8 24 25 38 42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 1 1 1 1 1 1 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 1 1 1 1 1 1 38 1 1 1 1 1 1 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.50 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

And the tickets to be purchased are shown below with suggestion as to whether to bet based on the total of the 6 numbers and the balance of odd and even and low and high lotto numbers:

 1 2 3 4 5 6 sum O E L H Bet 11 23 36 5 25 42 142 4 2 4 2 1 1 11 30 23 28 36 9 137 3 3 4 2 1 2 11 30 23 5 8 25 102 4 2 3 3 1 3 11 30 23 24 38 42 168 2 4 5 1 0 4 11 30 28 5 8 24 106 2 4 3 3 1 5 11 30 28 25 38 42 174 2 4 5 1 0 6 11 30 36 5 8 38 128 2 4 3 3 1 7 11 30 36 24 25 42 168 2 4 5 1 0 8 11 30 9 5 8 42 105 3 3 2 4 1 9 11 30 9 24 25 38 137 3 3 4 2 1 10 11 23 28 5 38 42 147 3 3 4 2 1 11 11 23 28 8 24 25 119 3 3 4 2 1 12 11 23 36 5 24 42 141 3 3 4 2 1 13 11 23 36 8 25 38 141 3 3 4 2 1 14 11 23 9 5 24 25 97 5 1 3 3 0 15 11 23 9 8 25 42 118 4 2 3 3 1 16 11 28 36 5 25 42 147 3 3 4 2 1 17 11 28 36 8 24 38 145 1 5 4 2 0 18 11 28 9 5 25 38 116 4 2 3 3 1 19 11 28 9 8 24 42 122 2 4 3 3 1 20 11 36 9 5 24 25 110 4 2 3 3 1 21 11 36 9 8 38 42 144 2 4 3 3 1 22 30 23 28 5 24 25 135 3 3 5 1 0 23 30 23 28 8 38 42 169 1 5 5 1 0 24 30 23 36 5 25 38 157 3 3 5 1 0 25 30 23 36 8 24 42 163 1 5 5 1 0 26 30 23 9 5 25 38 130 4 2 4 2 1 27 30 23 9 8 24 38 132 2 4 4 2 1 28 30 28 36 5 24 38 161 1 5 5 1 0 29 30 28 36 8 25 42 169 1 5 5 1 0 30 30 28 9 5 24 42 138 2 4 4 2 1 31 30 28 9 8 25 38 138 2 4 4 2 1 32 30 36 9 5 38 42 160 2 4 4 2 0 33 30 36 9 8 24 25 132 2 4 4 2 1 34 23 28 36 5 8 42 142 2 4 4 2 1 35 23 28 36 24 25 38 174 2 4 6 0 0 36 23 28 9 5 8 38 111 3 3 3 3 1 37 23 28 9 24 25 42 151 3 3 5 1 0 38 23 36 9 5 8 24 105 3 3 3 3 1 39 23 36 9 25 38 42 173 3 3 5 1 0 40 28 36 9 5 8 25 111 3 3 3 3 1 41 28 36 9 24 38 42 177 1 5 5 1 0 42 5 8 24 25 38 42 142 2 4 4 2 1 0.50 840 27 14.3% 540

And the expected winnings if the tickets hit 3, 4, 5 and 6 numbers are shown below:

 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bet Hits 0 0 20 1,000 25,000 6,000,000 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 3 0 3 1 4 1 2 1 5 0 3 1 6 1 3 1 7 0 4 1 8 1 3 1 9 1 2 1 10 1 4 1 11 1 3 1 12 1 5 1 13 1 4 1 14 0 4 1 15 1 4 1 16 1 5 1 17 0 2 1 18 1 3 1 19 1 2 1 20 1 4 1 21 1 3 1 22 0 3 1 23 0 2 1 24 0 4 1 25 0 3 1 26 1 3 1 27 1 1 1 28 0 2 1 29 0 3 1 30 1 2 1 31 1 1 1 32 0 3 1 33 1 2 1 34 1 4 1 35 0 3 1 36 1 2 1 37 0 3 1 38 1 3 1 39 0 4 1 40 1 3 1 41 0 2 1 42 1 3 1 27 2 10 18 10 2 0 Wins 540 0 0 360 10,000 50,000 0 60,360 Cost 840 W / C Ratio 71.86

The above strategy of trapping the numbers from their appearance in N prior draws, historical hits, total of the 6 numbers and balance between odd and even and low and high numbers (to remove extreme and unlikely combinations) results in a cost-effective betting strategy that allows you to have a higher chance of hitting 3, 4, 5 and 6 numbers with the least cost as unlikely combinations are eliminated to avoid un-necessary costs.

Good Luck to You.

If you need the Excel Lotto Model with the Historical Hits of 6/42, 6/45, 6/49, 6/55 and 6/58 lotto games in the Philippines, as well the statistical analysis of total hits, appearances in N prior draws, trapping of the probable lotto numbers to bet on, and the lotto wheel to come up with the lotto tickets to prepare and bet, cleaned up for unlikely combinations, please email me:

mars_ocampo@yahoo.com

or

energydataexpert@gmail.com

A cash donation of PhP2,000 for each lotto game (6/42, 6/45, 6/49, 6/55 and 6/58) for a total of PhP10,000 for all Philippine lotto games is highly appreciated.

You may pay via PayPal:

=====

energydataexpert@gmail.com

=====

or remit payment via bank/wire transfer:

=====

1) Name of Bank Branch & Address:

The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)

Pasig Ortigas Branch

G/F Benpres Building, Exchange Road corner Meralco Avenue

Ortigas Center, PASIG CITY 1605

METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES

2) Account Name:

Marcial T. Ocampo

3) Account Number:

Current Account = 0205-5062-41

4) SWIFT ID Number = BOPIPHMM

=====

For other countries and territories, I can customize a system that includes all of the above features (database on historical draws, statistical analysis, macros for predicting probable numbers to bet – trapping, then wheeling the numbers to bet and applying criteria to remove extreme combinations and reduce cost, email me again and let us discuss your specific needs so I can prepare a job cost estimate.

Great and Let Us Start Winning

The Lotto Expert

63-915-6067949 (GLOBE Mobile)

## The Thematic Resume/CV of Marcial Ocampo – the Energy Technology Expert

The Thematic Resume/CV of Marcial Ocampo – the Energy Technology Expert

_Marcial Ocampo_CV_October 2017

Hope I can be of help and contribute to the growth of your company.

Regards,

Marcial Ocampo

63-915-6067949 (GLOBE mobile)