does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $24 million. The risk-adjusted WACC is 12%. NPV: $ million IRR: places. NPV: $ million IRR: b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when this project is cvaluated? company needs to make sure that they have anticipated all costs in the "no mitigation" analysis from not doing the environmental mitigation. II. The environmental effects should be ignared sinee the mine is legal without mitigation. III. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. IV. The environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, since the mine is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis. V. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. c. Should this project be undertaken? If so, should the firm do the mitipation? analysis. analysis, analysis. analysis. analysis