Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This Presentation Uses Two Case Studies to Show How Risk Can Be Used as a Discriminant in Decision Making for Key Decisions, in: Key Areas of a Corporation, Selecting Alternatives, Evaluating Projects In the second Case Study, a method that eliminates the pitfalls of NPV is presented. CDA / ESM eliminates the pitfalls of NPV, an obsolete financial concept still used by many. The evaluation of a project with CDA/ESM includes: the annual risks potentially afflicting the project, construction risks, risks of malfunctioning, and possibly also the demolition/ reclamation costs.
Citation preview
1 1 1Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
STOP PROCRASTINATING!
NPV IS DEAD: USE RISK AS A KEY DECISION PARAMETER.
By F. Oboni & C. Oboni
2 2 2Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
This Presentation Uses Two Case Studies to Show How Risk Can Be Used as a
Discriminant in Decision Making for Key Decisions, in:
-Key Areas of a Corporation,
-Selecting Alternatives, -Evaluating Projects
In the second Case Study, a method that eliminates the pitfalls of NPV is presented.
3 3 3Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Case Study 1: Introducing In-Pit Crushing & Conveying System (IPC&CS) v.s. Shovel & Trucking (S&T) in a Large Dump Project.
The operation was experiencing: -critical personnel issues, -difficulties with the ageing truck fleet which would require a large capital investment for renewal and maintenance,-the cost of diesel was, in the long run, certain to rise again causing concern.
4 4 4Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
At pre-feasibility level the aim is to identify situations that could hinder the performances of the project and define issues that need to be immediately addressed.
5 5 5Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
“Acceptable”Mitigative Threshold
Zero Risk
ALARAALARPBACT
RISK
Risk mitigation geared towards reaching specific levels of residual risks vs. mitigative investments.
Mitigative
Investment
Costs to Attain
AcceptableResidual Risk
AcceptableResidual Risk
6 6 6Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Comparison between IPC&CS and S&T at the considered coal mine with no specific mitigations implemented.
7 7 7Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Once the appropriate mitigation level for the issues described earlier are introduced in the design, the system will still be subject to two sets of risks:
1) Residual risks derived from design mitigated hazards (which depend, on the level of mitigation selected by the design team)2) Risks linked to other issues (which may be independent from design mitigation efforts because they find their roots in public/workforce perception):
-Union/personnel unrest-Public outcry linked to dust and noise and perceived hazards as the new operation is implemented, etc.
8 8 8Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
A pre-feasibility qualitative risk analysis should reduce the chances of a fatal flaw of the design, by:
-defining design parameters and -bringing changes to the preliminary design geared towards increasing the chances of the future implementation to work and perform as intended.
9 9 9Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Comparison between IPC&CS and S&T at the considered coal mine with no specific mitigations implemented.
10 10 10Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
11 11 11Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
If the design mitigation level are not sufficient, then the following situations may arise for the IPC&CS:
-Refusal to accept the changes brought by the implementation-The system will not reach the promised performance level-The company will not produce the appropriate product-Repeated serviceability problems
12 12 12Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
All of the last four points could have large to catastrophic consequences for the project, and probabilities that will depend on the mitigation levels defined by the design team.
If the pre-feasibility level is passed by the IPC&CS, the next step will be to:
-review all of the proposed mitigations,-define the residual probabilities of failure and -evaluate mitigation alternatives.
13 13 13Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Case Study 2: Long Term Pumping v.s. Encapsulation of a Very Large, Leaching,
Underground Toxic Waste Storage.
This case considers a large underground storage of a toxic water soluble compound with the potential to leach into the water table.
In order to prevent the leaching a pumping system has been installed.
14 14 14Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
However, water percolates from the surface and some of the compound is dissolved, leading to the need to treat the pumped water.
In the Status Quo, the permanent pumping system keeps the underground water level below the lower level of the storage.
15 15 15Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Cause/Hazard for Status Quo alternativeProbability Cost M$
Capital investment will be necessary at start on the treatment plant
90% 5
Energy cost (diesel for the power plant) has a yearly chance of
30% to double
Climate changes has a yearly chance of 15% to triple
16 16 16Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
The encapsulation would require a large capital investment (120M$), but afterwards the permanent pumping and treatment would be reduced considerably.
The alternative to the Status Quo would be a Rehabilitation of the site, i.e. Encapsulation of the underground storage.
17 17 17Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Cause/Hazard for Encapsulation alternativeProbability Cost M$
Capital investment has a chance to double (additional 120M) of
10% 120
Energy cost (diesel for the power plant) has a yearly chance of
30% to double
Climate changes can force to still pump like today? unclear? with a chance of
5% 3.6
18 18 18Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Because of uncertainties (construction, long term climate change, etc.) there is also a chance that after developing the encapsulation as above, it may be necessary to maintain pumping as in the Status Quo.
This means that despite investing in the encapsulation the project still could not work properly, which is an example of a failed rehabilitation case or a worst case scenario.
19 19 19Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
What makes this case study particularly strong against using NPV for alternative selection is that:
-most of the expense in Rehabilitation is upfront,-the yearly expenses (as traditionally done, without the risks) are small, -the duration is very long; the NPV almost “nullifies” any expense coming after approximately 20 years.
20 20 20Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Traditional NPV Analysis
As usual in mining projects let's use for this example a Rate of Return of 9% and consider a life duration of
forty years.
NB: the NPV are always marked as negative values in this study to stress the fact that the project generates
only expenses and no profits.
21 21 21Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Analysis Life Span: 40 years
Rehabilitation: Construction 120M$0.3M$/yr, NPV: -123.23M$Status Quo: Construction 0M$3.6M$/yr, NPV: -42.33M$
It can be inferred by this simple analysis that the Status Quo has by far a better NPV value than the Rehabilitation. We will show later this is a wrong estimation because of the long life of the project, and the risks that need to be included into the analysis.
22 22 22Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
There are two ways such an analysis could be altered to include risks.
1) Add the yearly risks as an additional cost 2) Increase the rate of discount to “include uncertainties” as we have seen some do.
Both these attempts would fail to yield pertinent results, as we have demonstrated many times already in prior examples.
23 23 23Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
The NPV replacement method is called CDA/ESM™ and is used to compare alternatives in financial terms, including:
a) life’s cycle balance encompassing internal and external risks over a selected duration and
b) project implementation and demobilization costs and risks.
24 24 24Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
The CDA/ESM™ (Comparative Decision Analysis / Economic Safety Margin) eliminates the problems linked to the NPV deficiencies
CDA/ESM™ has been successfully applied to:
-rope v.s. road transportation, -surface v.s. underground solutions, -environmental projects, -water treatments alternatives, -transportation networks and -go/no-go decisions.
25 25 25Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
CDA/ESM™ is used to compare alternatives in financial/risk terms and can yield for each year:
-the probability of financial failure, -the probability of overcoming available financing, -the probability of not being able to pay for demolition bond etc. and of course a -good estimate of the income, even for long term projects.
26 26 26Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Example of CDA/ESM application user interface(first screen of the input phase)
27 27 27Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
CDA/ESM results at the 40 year time horizon for the three alternatives: Status Quo, Rehabilitation,
and Failed Rehabilitation
Vertical axis: Cumulative financial results in M$
(probability of fiasco, exceedance of specific values etc. can be evaluated together as many other critical factors)
28 28 28Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
Sensitivity analyses can be performed, for example against energy cost increase. The Rehabilitation is way more efficient than the Status Quo, once all the considered risks are included, over the 40 years of expected life span.
29 29 29Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
In the Case Study, the Status Quo alternative is less appealing than Rehabilitation, for any probability of energy cost increase, because of its risk environment.
More risk scenarios can of course be included in the analysis.
30 30 30Riskope International SA © 2009
www.riskope.com
CDA / ESM eliminates the pitfalls of NPV, an obsolete financial concept still used by many.
The evaluation of a project with CDA/ESM includes:
-the annual risks potentially afflicting the project,-construction risks, -risks of malfunctioning, and possibly also the-demolition/reclamation costs.
