Financial Evaluation of Mining Projects:Is“Common Practice” Enough?

Introduction Net Present Value (NPV) techniques are becoming widely used in industry as a standard analytical tool in making capital budgeting decisions. However, NPV techniques are often misused in "common practice." A comparison was made between the use of NPV techniques in common practice and an Adjusted Net Present Value (ANPV) approach to capital budgeting in the financial analysis of a mining project. The comparison was made by applying both methods to a hypothetical copper project. The intent of the analysis is to provide an example for practitioners to follow when financially analyzing mining (or other) projects. To maintain the thrust of the analysis, the project has been evaluated as a stand alone, total project. No consideration has been made of the division of cash flows accruing to various owners over the life of the project. This omission will not affect the comparative nature of the analysis. This discussion assumes that the reader is familiar with present value as a concept and as a tool in capital budgeting. Finance theory has embraced NPV analysis as the correct way to evaluate capital budgeting alternatives. Many articles have been written expounding the virtues of NPV over other capital budgeting methods, such as Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Payback, Accounting Rate of Return, and others. It is not the purpose of this article to review all of the literature in this area; suffice it to say that in academic circles NPV concepts are accepted as the norm. A survey by Schall, Sundem, and Geijsbeck (1978) indicates that major US companies are finally following in academia's footsteps. Fifty-six percent of the companies responding to the survey use NPV techniques in their capital budgeting process. Further, some 86% of the companies surveyed use discounted cash flow methods (NPV or IRR) for capital budgeting decisions. This compares with a survey by Klammer (1972) that showed 57% of companies using both techniques, a considerable increase in seven years. With the increasing use of NPV techniques in industry, there are certain uses in common practice that can give misleading results. Five common errors in NPV analysis of large projects are: • No distinction is made between real and nominal cashflows. • The discount rate(s) used in the NPV analysis is not formally adjusted for risk. • There is no distinction of possible differences in the riskiness of different project cash flows; i.e., revenue vs. depreciation. • There is no recognition of the cash benefits to the project from interest tax shields (interest payments on the project's debt that are tax deductible). • There is no clear recognition of subsidies to the project from concessionary debt financing. No Distinction Between Real and Nominal Cash Flows Often, expected cash flows for a project are stated as a mixture of real (in constant dollars) and nominal (in current dollars) cash flows. For example, expected revenue cash flows may be stated in real terms and depreciation may be stated in nominal terms. If cash flows are added together to give an after tax cash flow, and this single cash stream is discounted, care must be taken to ensure that cash flows are consistently stated. All cash flows should either be stated in nominal terms or in real terms. In addition, the discount rate used must be stated in the same terms as the cash flows being discounted. Real cash flows must be discounted using real discount rates and nominal cash flows using nominal discount rates. Discount Rate Not Adjusted Numerous methods for obtaining discount rates are used in common practice. Schall and others