15.01.2015 Views

Information Only - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...

Information Only - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...

Information Only - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

VIII-3<br />

With respect to actual exploration and development <strong>of</strong> potash resources, the<br />

concern is the net present value <strong>of</strong> anticipated cash flows. Simulation data provided cashflow<br />

estimates, which were aggregated and averaged to yield expected net present values,<br />

or E(NPV). From the perspective <strong>of</strong> a firm engaged in extraction <strong>of</strong> potash deposits from<br />

this area, a 15 % discount rate leads to the following conclusions from the simulation<br />

runs:<br />

Sylvite:<br />

If no new development costs are incurred, the E(NPV) <strong>of</strong> mining sylvite in the<br />

combined area to a single firm is about $50 million. If $5 million new<br />

development costs are incurred, the E(NPV) in the combined area is $40 million.<br />

If the new plant is built, the E(NPV) <strong>of</strong> the sylvite mining venture to a single firm<br />

is estimated to be -$31 million. Sylvite E(NPV) data may be found in Table 2.<br />

If no new development costs are incurred, the E(NPV) to a single firm <strong>of</strong> mining<br />

sylvite in the WIPP area is $31 million. If $5 million in new development costs<br />

are incurred, the E(NPV) in the WIPP area is $25 million.<br />

If no new development costs are incurred, the E(NPV) to a single firm <strong>of</strong> mining<br />

sylvite in the additional area is $47 million. If $5 million in new development<br />

costs are incurred, the E(NPV) in the additional area is estimated to be $38<br />

million.<br />

The above numbers for the WIPP site and additional area do not sum to the<br />

numbers presented for the combined area. One major factor contributes to this seeming<br />

anomaly. Annual production (product tons sold) was constrained to 350,000 tons <strong>of</strong><br />

langbeinite and 450,000 tons <strong>of</strong> sylvite. The three study areas - the WIPP site, additional<br />

area and combined area - are therefore considered independently in light <strong>of</strong> the upper<br />

limits on potash production. Numbers for the WIPP site reflect the assumption that<br />

450,000 tons <strong>of</strong> sylvite (or, 350,000 tons <strong>of</strong> langbeinite) will be produced annually from<br />

potash within WIPP boundaries. Numbers for the additional area reflect the same<br />

assumption. Numbers from the combined area also reflect the annual potash production<br />

assumptions, and do not represent the sum <strong>of</strong> values generated for the WIPP site and<br />

additional area. The combined area is treated as a single entity producing 450,000 tons <strong>of</strong><br />

potash and 350,000 tons <strong>of</strong> langbeinite annually.<br />

Also, as may be seen from the maps accompanying this report, much <strong>of</strong> the WIPP<br />

site potash is on the additional-area border. For the first several years <strong>of</strong> operation - the<br />

most critical from a present value valuation standpoint - the amount <strong>of</strong> mined tonnage<br />

required to produce the same amount <strong>of</strong> sylvite from each area is nearly the same. In<br />

subsequent years, there is increasing divergence between area simulations as the potash<br />

within the WIPP site is played out (in a simulation sense) while the additional area<br />

continues to produce.<br />

<strong>Information</strong> <strong>Only</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!