Comparison between traditional project appraisal methods and uncertainty analysis applied to mining planning

Abstract Long-term mining planning is a complex process which involves a large number of variables and uncertainties. Traditional discount cash flow (DCF) is usually used in the evaluation of mining projects. DCF includes net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and profitability inde...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser:	Marcélio Prado Fontes, Koppe, Jair Carlos, Albuquerque, Nelson
Format:	Dataset
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences FOS: Materials engineering FOS: Mechanical engineering Geology Mechanical Engineering Mechanics Metals and Alloy Materials
Online-Zugang:	Volltext bestellen
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator	Marcélio Prado Fontes Koppe, Jair Carlos Albuquerque, Nelson
description	Abstract Long-term mining planning is a complex process which involves a large number of variables and uncertainties. Traditional discount cash flow (DCF) is usually used in the evaluation of mining projects. DCF includes net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and profitability index (PI). A sensitivity analysis is usually carried out to evaluate the impact of the main variables on the project. Another way to measure uncertainties is through the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the DCF methods and measure uncertainties through sensitivity analysis and MCS in the evaluation of mine sequencing. A case study of a phosphate mine project was used to chart the comparative study. In the results, NPV and uncertainty analysis through MCS were more consistent.
doi_str_mv	10.6084/m9.figshare.12171498
format	Dataset
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>datacite_PQ8</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_datacite_primary_10_6084_m9_figshare_12171498</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_6084_m9_figshare_12171498</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-d918-53955e296da4c2f511a3e01a498a2607fa4b66e25ffb5d378ded175d678a36083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kM1uhDAMhLn0UG37Bj3kBaAESCDHCvVPWqmXvUeGOLtekYCSVBVvX1C7J9ujkTXzZdkTLwtZds2zU4Wlc7xAwIJXvOWN6u6zqZ_dAoHi7NmA6QfRsxTAUKLZw8SWMF9xTAyWJQDFTXGYLrOJDLxh337EkIB8WrcbpjVS3K0ToWFpZo48-TNbJvD78pDdWZgiPv7PQ3Z6ez31H_nx6_2zfznmRvEuF7USAislDTRjZQXnUGPJYcsLlSxbC80gJVbC2kGYuu0MGt4KI9sO6q1qfciav7cGEoyUUC-BHIRV81LvLLRT-sZC31jUv5g7XfM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>dataset</recordtype></control><display><type>dataset</type><title>Comparison between traditional project appraisal methods and uncertainty analysis applied to mining planning</title><source>DataCite</source><creator>Marcélio Prado Fontes ; Koppe, Jair Carlos ; Albuquerque, Nelson</creator><creatorcontrib>Marcélio Prado Fontes ; Koppe, Jair Carlos ; Albuquerque, Nelson</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Long-term mining planning is a complex process which involves a large number of variables and uncertainties. Traditional discount cash flow (DCF) is usually used in the evaluation of mining projects. DCF includes net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and profitability index (PI). A sensitivity analysis is usually carried out to evaluate the impact of the main variables on the project. Another way to measure uncertainties is through the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the DCF methods and measure uncertainties through sensitivity analysis and MCS in the evaluation of mine sequencing. A case study of a phosphate mine project was used to chart the comparative study. In the results, NPV and uncertainty analysis through MCS were more consistent.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12171498</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>SciELO journals</publisher><subject>FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences ; FOS: Materials engineering ; FOS: Mechanical engineering ; Geology ; Mechanical Engineering ; Mechanics ; Metals and Alloy Materials</subject><creationdate>2020</creationdate><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,1892</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://commons.datacite.org/doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12171498$$EView_record_in_DataCite.org$$FView_record_in_$$GDataCite.org$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Marcélio Prado Fontes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koppe, Jair Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albuquerque, Nelson</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison between traditional project appraisal methods and uncertainty analysis applied to mining planning</title><description>Abstract Long-term mining planning is a complex process which involves a large number of variables and uncertainties. Traditional discount cash flow (DCF) is usually used in the evaluation of mining projects. DCF includes net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and profitability index (PI). A sensitivity analysis is usually carried out to evaluate the impact of the main variables on the project. Another way to measure uncertainties is through the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the DCF methods and measure uncertainties through sensitivity analysis and MCS in the evaluation of mine sequencing. A case study of a phosphate mine project was used to chart the comparative study. In the results, NPV and uncertainty analysis through MCS were more consistent.</description><subject>FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences</subject><subject>FOS: Materials engineering</subject><subject>FOS: Mechanical engineering</subject><subject>Geology</subject><subject>Mechanical Engineering</subject><subject>Mechanics</subject><subject>Metals and Alloy Materials</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>dataset</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>dataset</recordtype><sourceid>PQ8</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kM1uhDAMhLn0UG37Bj3kBaAESCDHCvVPWqmXvUeGOLtekYCSVBVvX1C7J9ujkTXzZdkTLwtZds2zU4Wlc7xAwIJXvOWN6u6zqZ_dAoHi7NmA6QfRsxTAUKLZw8SWMF9xTAyWJQDFTXGYLrOJDLxh337EkIB8WrcbpjVS3K0ToWFpZo48-TNbJvD78pDdWZgiPv7PQ3Z6ez31H_nx6_2zfznmRvEuF7USAislDTRjZQXnUGPJYcsLlSxbC80gJVbC2kGYuu0MGt4KI9sO6q1qfciav7cGEoyUUC-BHIRV81LvLLRT-sZC31jUv5g7XfM</recordid><startdate>20200422</startdate><enddate>20200422</enddate><creator>Marcélio Prado Fontes</creator><creator>Koppe, Jair Carlos</creator><creator>Albuquerque, Nelson</creator><general>SciELO journals</general><scope>DYCCY</scope><scope>PQ8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200422</creationdate><title>Comparison between traditional project appraisal methods and uncertainty analysis applied to mining planning</title><author>Marcélio Prado Fontes ; Koppe, Jair Carlos ; Albuquerque, Nelson</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d918-53955e296da4c2f511a3e01a498a2607fa4b66e25ffb5d378ded175d678a36083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>datasets</rsrctype><prefilter>datasets</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences</topic><topic>FOS: Materials engineering</topic><topic>FOS: Mechanical engineering</topic><topic>Geology</topic><topic>Mechanical Engineering</topic><topic>Mechanics</topic><topic>Metals and Alloy Materials</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marcélio Prado Fontes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koppe, Jair Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albuquerque, Nelson</creatorcontrib><collection>DataCite (Open Access)</collection><collection>DataCite</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marcélio Prado Fontes</au><au>Koppe, Jair Carlos</au><au>Albuquerque, Nelson</au><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>DATA</ristype><title>Comparison between traditional project appraisal methods and uncertainty analysis applied to mining planning</title><date>2020-04-22</date><risdate>2020</risdate><abstract>Abstract Long-term mining planning is a complex process which involves a large number of variables and uncertainties. Traditional discount cash flow (DCF) is usually used in the evaluation of mining projects. DCF includes net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and profitability index (PI). A sensitivity analysis is usually carried out to evaluate the impact of the main variables on the project. Another way to measure uncertainties is through the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the DCF methods and measure uncertainties through sensitivity analysis and MCS in the evaluation of mine sequencing. A case study of a phosphate mine project was used to chart the comparative study. In the results, NPV and uncertainty analysis through MCS were more consistent.</abstract><pub>SciELO journals</pub><doi>10.6084/m9.figshare.12171498</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier	DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12171498
ispartof
issn
language	eng
recordid	cdi_datacite_primary_10_6084_m9_figshare_12171498
source	DataCite
subjects	FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences FOS: Materials engineering FOS: Mechanical engineering Geology Mechanical Engineering Mechanics Metals and Alloy Materials
title	Comparison between traditional project appraisal methods and uncertainty analysis applied to mining planning
url	https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T20%3A08%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-datacite_PQ8&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.au=Marc%C3%A9lio%20Prado%20Fontes&rft.date=2020-04-22&rft_id=info:doi/10.6084/m9.figshare.12171498&rft_dat=%3Cdatacite_PQ8%3E10_6084_m9_figshare_12171498%3C/datacite_PQ8%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true