17.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 harm to a nearby river. The firm could spend an additional $10.66 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental Problem, but it would not be required to do so. Developing the mine (without mitigation) would cost $66 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $22 million per year for 5 years. If the firm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $23 million. The risk-adjusted WACC is 11%.
a.Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Do not round your intermediate calculations. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55.
NPV $ million
IRR
b.Calculate the NPV and IRR without mitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Do not round your intermediate calculations. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10,550,000 should be entered as 10.55.
NPV $ million
IRR
a.
NPV with mitigation is $ 8.35 Million
IRR is 15.24 %
b.
NPV without mitigation is $ 15.31 Million
IRR is 19.86 %
Explanation:
Computation of NPV for both Projects:
Project with mitigation |
Project without mitigation |
|||||
Year |
Computation of PV Factor |
PV Factor @ 11 % (F) |
Cash Flow Cm |
PV (= F x Cm) |
Cash Flow, C |
PV (= F x C) |
0 |
1/(1+0.11)^0 |
1 |
($76,660,000) |
($76,660,000) |
($66,000,000) |
($66,000,000) |
1 |
1/(1+0.11)^1 |
0.90090090090 |
$23,000,000 |
$20,720,721 |
$22,000,000 |
$19,819,820 |
2 |
1/(1+0.11)^2 |
0.81162243324 |
$23,000,000 |
$18,667,316 |
$22,000,000 |
$17,855,694 |
3 |
1/(1+0.11)^3 |
0.73119138130 |
$23,000,000 |
$16,817,402 |
$22,000,000 |
$16,086,210 |
4 |
1/(1+0.11)^4 |
0.65873097415 |
$23,000,000 |
$15,150,812 |
$22,000,000 |
$14,492,081 |
5 |
1/(1+0.11)^5 |
0.59345132806 |
$23,000,000 |
$13,649,381 |
$22,000,000 |
$13,055,929 |
NPV |
$8,345,631 |
NPV |
$15,309,734 |
Computation of IRR for both Projects:
A |
B |
B |
|
1 |
Year |
Cash Flow (with mitigation) |
Cash Flow, C (without mitigation) |
2 |
0 |
($76,660,000) |
($66,000,000) |
3 |
1 |
$23,000,000 |
$22,000,000 |
4 |
2 |
$23,000,000 |
$22,000,000 |
5 |
3 |
$23,000,000 |
$22,000,000 |
6 |
4 |
$23,000,000 |
$22,000,000 |
7 |
5 |
$23,000,000 |
$22,000,000 |
8 |
IRR |
15.24% |
19.86% |
Let the excel sheet be looks like as the above table.
To compute IRR for the project with mitigation insert formula in B8 as “=IRR(B2:B7), which will display as 15.24 %
To compute IRR for the project without mitigation insert formula in C8 as “=IRR(C2:C7), which will display as 19.86 %
17.A mining company is considering a new project. Because the mine has received a permit, the...
CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 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 harm to a nearby river. The firm could spend an additional $11 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental Problem, but it would not be required to do so. Developing the mine (without mitigation) would cost $69 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $23 million per year...
CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 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 harm to a nearby river. The firm could spend an additional $9 million at Year O to mitigate the environmental Problem, but it would not be required to do so. Developing the mine (without mitigation) would cost $51 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $17 million per year...
CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 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 harm to a nearby river. The firm could spend an additional $10 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental Problem, but it would not be required to do so. Developing the mine (without mitigation) would cost $60 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $20 million per year...
An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would cost $240.62 million,...
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 harm to a nearby river. The firm could spend an additional $10 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. Developing the mine (without mitigation) would require an initial outlay of $60 million, and the expected cash inflows would be $20 million per year for...
An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would cost $269.99 millon,...
An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would cost $270.70 million,...
An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would cost $210.64 million,...
CAPITAL BUDGETING CRITERIA: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without...
An electric utility is considering a new power plant in northern Arizona. Power from the plant would be sold in the Phoenix area, where it is badly needed. Because the firm has received a permit, the plant would be legal; but it would cause some air pollution. The company could spend an additional $40 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental problem, but it would not be required to do so. The plant without mitigation would require an initial...