helppp

inflaws would be $21 million. The risk-adjusted vacc is 12%. NPV: $ millipa IRR: 2 b. How should the enwironmental effects be dealt with when this project is evaluated? 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 ignored since the mine is legal without mitigation. III. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. Savert- " c. 5hould this project be undertaken? Secct If 90, should the firm dn the rnitigation? nalysis. analysis. nalysis. - Sielmat- IRR: b. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? I. The environmental effects sheuld be ignored since the plant is iegal without mitigation. II. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. envircomental effects have been considered in the original analysis. IV. The erwironmental 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? I. The project should be undertaken only under the "mitigation" assumption. II. The project should be undertaken since the IRR is positive under both the "mitigation" and "no mitigation" assumptions. III. The project shpuld be undertaker since the NPV is pasitive under both the "mitigation" and "ne mitigation" assumptions. V. Even when no mitigation is considered the project has a negative NPV, so it should not be undertaken. undertaking the project without concern for the environmental impacts