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 among customers, community,

etc. Therefore, even though the mine is legal without mitigation, the company needs to make sure that they 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 mitigation, 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 actually occur.