SCI-MIP does not project what systems should do. It measures what they actually do — and quantifies the verified gap between the two. Every figure on this page originates from physical field data.
The first SCI-MIP field verification case. All figures derive from physical inventory, metered consumption records, and multi-point field measurements conducted in January 2024.
The gap between each well's nameplate flow rate and its actual recorded output. What equipment is rated to do versus what it actually delivers — this is the core of what SCI-MIP quantifies.
What this means: On average, the 11 measured wells are delivering 38% less than their nameplate rating. This is not a prediction — it is a measured finding from Phase I field work. A well rated at 65 m³/h is, in practice, delivering around 40 m³/h. SCI-MIP's Baseline = 1.00 anchors this measured as-is state as the reference point for all future comparison.
Three key performance indicators extracted from the verified baseline dataset. These are measured realities, not estimates.
The energy cost of delivering one cubic metre of groundwater under current operating conditions. Higher values indicate inefficiency — worn impellers, ageing motors, or poor operating point selection relative to system curve.
▼ Target 2028: 0.40 kWh/m³FAO norms for the Kur-Araz Valley project a full irrigation demand of approximately 258M kWh/year. Actual measured consumption is 138M kWh — indicating 53% of theoretical required level. Phase II will determine whether this reflects under-irrigation or genuine efficiency.
⚠ Under-irrigation or efficiency gap — Phase II to confirmThe annual energy expenditure for the 1,069-well system at the verified 2024 baseline. This figure is the financial reference against which all savings projections are calculated — any claimed reduction must be expressed as a ratio against this confirmed number.
▼ Target 2029: 10.5M AZN/yr (30% reduction)Three scenarios modelled from the verified 138M kWh baseline. All projections require Phase II field verification before any financial or contractual use. These are strategic planning tools — not performance commitments.
Indicative Projections Only. These scenarios are computed from the verified baseline using SCI-MIP analytical protocols. They represent the envelope of achievable outcomes based on comparable system interventions. They do not constitute guarantees, contractual commitments, or certified outcomes. All scenarios require Phase II field verification and are subject to revision. Proportional — not additive — combination of interventions is assumed.
SCI-MIP structures verification in phases. Each phase produces evidence that informs the next. No phase output is used beyond its validated scope.
GW-AZ-2024-001 is the first. The same rigour applies to every system that enters the SCI-MIP framework — regardless of geography, technology, or scale.