Question: A mining company is considering a new project. Because the mine has received a permit, the project would be legal; but it would cause significant

A mining company is considering a new project. Because the mine has received a permit, the project would be legal; but it would cause significant ha to a nearby river. The firm could spend an additional $10.66 million at Year O to mitigate the environmental Problem, but it would not be required to so. Developing the mine (without mitigation) would require an initial outlay of $66 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $22 million per ye for 5 years. If the firm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $23 million. The risk-adjusted WACC is 13%. a. Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entere as 10.55. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answers to two decimal places. NPV: $ million IRR: % Calculate the NPV and IRR without mitigation. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answers to two decimal places. NPV: $ million IRR: % b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when this project is evaluated? I. The environmental effects if not mitigated could result in additional loss of cash flows and/or fines and penalties due to ill will am customers, community, etc. Therefore, even though the mine is legal without mitigation, the company needs to make sure that t have anticipated all costs in the "no mitigation" analysis from not doing the environmental mitigation. II. The environmental effects should be ignored since the mine is legal without mitigation. III. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. IV. The environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, since the mine is legal without mitigat there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis. V. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actu occur. -Select
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts
