Mine Evaluation in a Changing Investment Climate (8f98bc8e-d083-4c4e-af9f-cc813799b51e)

Part 2 of this article continues with a discussion of features that distinguish contemporary investment analysis in mining from earlier methods. Part 1 traced the evolution of evaluation methodology from the traditional and discounted cash flow methods to the present. Quantitative investment models of the past 20 years played an important role in mine evaluation, but a new integrated approach to mine investment decision-making is now developing because of growing economic, technical, and political uncertainties. One of those uncertainties -inflation-was discussed in Part 1. Increased Risk At a time when mineral production technology and analytical evaluation tools have never been more sophisticated, it may seem anomalous to claim that mining ventures are riskier. Whereas technical risk has, indeed, been notably reduced, business risk the chance of a major loss due to market factors-has increased. This has been caused by two factors: the rapidly rising capital requirements of new projects and increasingly unpredictable future economic conditions. These difficulties are compounded by the long lead times of large, new mining projects. Rising Capital Requirements A $100 million investment is no longer considered to be a large mining project in most cases. For a large metal mining project, the total cost of the concentrator alone can exceed $100 million. Amoco Minerals' Thompson Creek molybdenum mine being developed in Idaho will cost over $350 million, for a relatively modest sized (23-kt/d or 25,000-stpd) ore operation with no extraordinary features. For a major grass roots copper operation producing blis¬ter or refined copper, the capital requirements are billions of dollars, not millions. Project costs are higher for two reasons. One, the projects themselves are larger; and two, the capital cost per unit of production is rising rapidly. Projects are larger because lower grade ores, yielding smaller margins, must be mined in greater volume-particularly in view of the high fixed costs of modern technology. When analysts contemplate any capital project, an important consideration is the minimum economic size of the facility. This is the smallest size that can be built and still be competitive on a total unit production cost basis. In the conventional copper smelting business, for example, a production rate of at least 91 kt/a (100,000 stpy) of blister copper is about the absolute minimum for reducing unit fixed costs to competitive levels. Clearly, many variables affect the minimum economic size of a mining facility, but with few exceptions that size continues to grow. Unit capital costs of new mining projects also are continuing to rise. The accompanying table shows that the capital costs in primary copper production have risen faster than the cost of living. Of particular note is the capital charge of over $1.70/kg (77411b) required for a new, fully integrated facility in 1981. Thus, the mid-1982 copper price would not even cover the cost of capital for a new copper producing complex without considering the direct operating costs for such a facility. The breath-taking costs of new mining projects are caused by factors such as increasingly complex technology, the rising social costs of creating attractive living and working conditions for employ¬ees, and the expenditures re¬quired for environmental protec¬tion. For whatever reasons, how¬ever, unit capital costs in mining continue to exhibit staggering growth rates. Future Economic Conditions Risk is not only a function of the size of the potential loss-an im¬portant measure of which is the capital intensity of mining dis¬cussed above-but also of the like¬lihood of incurring the loss. It is here that the ever increasing lead times of mining projects and the glaring limitations of economic forecasting are so important. In comparison to nearly all other in¬vestments, mining has more capi¬tal at stake for a longer period of time before commercial uncer¬tainty is resolved by distant eco¬nomic conditions that are subject to high forecasting errors. A sobering example of the pre¬ceding points occurred with the Lakeshore copper mine in south¬ern Arizona that Hecla Mining Co. undertook to finance and manage in 1969. The project was a joint venture of Hecla and the El Paso Natural Gas Co. and included two mines-one producing oxide ore and a second in the sulfide zone¬and a complex processing facility producing both electrowon cop¬per cathodes and copper precipi¬tates. The project originally was