In this paper, the net present value (NPV) of a phosphate ore beneficiation flowsheet is analysed under appropriate technical-economic conditions, considering all related uncertainties, using a new Economic Mine Value (EMV) dynamic model to assess the feasibility of the flowsheet. The stochastic NPV of the dynamic model showed that the project is 53.3% more economically viable than the static deterministic NPV. Risk analysis showed that the net present value-at-risk (NPVaR) is likely to achieve a value less than zero, with a 4.7% chance of incurring a financial loss. In addition, sensitivity analysis ranked the model variables according to their impact on the stochastic NPV. The NPV was optimized by adjusting the capacity and capital costs (CAPEX) as decision variables, imposing the price as a model constraint, and using a NPVaR of 1% to maximize NPV. The EMV model is a universal model that can be applied to various mineral deposits.
AmpofoKD.2017. Reasons why Real Options Analysis (ROA) is not Widely Adopted in the Mineral Industry. PhD Thesis, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland. https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2017.622.
3.
BeckDMB.2013. Determination of optimal mining cut-off grades: mathematical formulation and solution algorithm: (case study: hinoba copper mine in the Philippines). December, 1–50. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35292.80007.
4.
BrunoMR.2016. Economic assessment and mine production optimization of an open-pit gold mine operation in peru, based on the iterative cutoff grade analysis approach [Thesis of Master of Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May], 87.
ChenH-C.2011. Analysis of studies from 2000-2010 in real option theory and application to OM. Am J Oper Res. 01 (01): 16 – 23. doi: 10.4236/ajor.2011.11003.
7.
Corporation, P.2014. Maker of risk & decision analysis software using monte carlo simulation. https://www.palisade.com/.
8.
DowS.2019. Risk and uncertainty. In: DimandR, HagemannH, editors. The Elgar companion to John Maynard Keynes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar ; p. 255 – 261. doi: 10.4337/9781788118569.00051.
FontesP.2020. Comparison between traditional project appraisal methods and uncertainty applied to mining planning analysis. Mining. 73 (1993): 261 – 265.
11.
FooN.2015. Assessing investment strategies in mining projects in the Asia-Pacific region. September. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4222.4085.
12.
FooN, BlochH, SalimR.2018. The optimisation rule for investment in mining projects. Resour Policy. 55: 123 – 132. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.11.005.
13.
Franco-SepulvedaG, CampuzanoC, PinedaC.2017. NPV risk simulation of an open pit gold mine project under the O'Hara cost model by using GAs. Int J Min Sci Technol. 27 (3): 557 – 565. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.03.004.
KroeseDP, BreretonT, TaimreT, BotevZI.2014. Why the monte carlo method is so important today. WIRES Computational Statistics. 6 (6): 386 – 392. doi: 10.1002/wics.1314.
20.
MalliT, PamukcuC, KöseH.2015. Determination of optimum production capacity and mine life considering net present value in open pit mining at different overall slope angles. Acta Montan Slovaca. 20 (1): 62 – 70. doi: 10.3390/ams20010062.
21.
MewMC.2016. Phosphate rock costs, prices and resources interaction. Sci Total Environ. 542: 1008 – 1012. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.045.
22.
MillardSP, NeerchalNK.2020. Monte carlo simulation and risk assessment. In: Environmental Statistics with S-PLUS. Boca Raton: CRC press ; p. 751 – 794. doi: 10.1201/9781420037173-17.
23.
Misnadiarly. 2008. No 主観的健康感を中心とした在宅高齢者における 健康関連指標に関する共分散構造分析Title. December, 5–26.
24.
MunJ.2006. Real options and Monte Carlo simulation versus traditional DCF valuation in layman's terms. In: Managing enterprise risk: what the electric industry experience implies for contemporary business. USA: Elsevier Global Energy Policy and Economics Series ; p. 75 – 106. doi: 10.1016/B978-008044949-4/50039-8.
25.
Nabil El-Sayed Abdel Rahman El-Sharkawy. 2017. Technical and economical feasibility of beneficiating (Abu-Tartur) phosphate deposit, MS.c Thesis, Cairo University.
26.
NicholasG.2014. An integrated risk evaluation model for mineral deposits (Issue March).
27.
Palisade. 2016. @RISK: Risk Analysis using Monte Carlo Simulation in Excel and Project - Palisade. https://www.palisade.com/risk/.
28.
ParkHM, NelsonMG.2013. Mining project evaluation process for investment decisions: risk variables in mining projects – part one. Min Eng. 65 (10): 18 – 21.
29.
PawarT.2017. Probability of success in program management. December, 200.
PlatonV, ConstantinescuA.2014. Monte carlo method in risk analysis for investment projects. Procedia Econ Finance. 15: 393 – 400. doi: 10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00463-8.
WalanP, DavidssonS, JohanssonS, HöökM.2014. Phosphate rock production and depletion: regional disaggregated modeling and global implications. Resour Conserv Recycl. 93 (0): 178 – 187. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.10.011.
38.
WardhaniPA.2015. Mining project evaluation process for investment decisions. In Mining Journal of Utah. 6(Issue May).
39.
WeiJ, JianZ, JianglanL.2011. Mining investment risk analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation. Proceedings - 2011 international conference on management of e-commerce and e-government, ICMeCG 2011, 72 – 75. doi: 10.1109/ICMeCG.2011.64.
