Evaluating mine plans under uncertainty: Can the real options make a difference?

Abstract Over the last few years, many studies have presented the real options valuation (ROV) as a promising technique of valuing natural resource investments under conditions of uncertainty. Apart from the common conclusion that the ROV is better than the conventional net present value (NPV) method in integrating the value of management flexibility and proper handling of cash flows risk, there is a lack of procedures for testing the usefulness and advantages of the ROV over the static NPV method in practice. Arguably, it is not yet clear whether the ROV can deal with the complexity of mining projects and whether it can really be applied to make decisions that improve project value. This work aims to take steps towards filling the gap in existing literature by dealing with the above-mentioned concerns. First, this paper proposes a simulation-based ROV method that can handle multiple uncertainties as well as the variability of cash flow parameters that characterize mining projects. Second, the paper presents an example for investigating the impact ROV may have on project profitability, by improving the decision making process. A case study of selecting the most profitable design and production sequence for an actual Australian gold mine under multiple sources of uncertainty is provided. Both the conventional NPV method and the proposed real options technique are applied to evaluate the various technically feasible mine plans with fixed schedules so as to select the most economically appealing one. The results show that the design based on value maximization indicated by the static NPV method is different from that of the ROV. Comparing the design values estimated based on the actual market data recommended by both techniques shows that the value of the ROV-based design is 11–18% higher than the value of the NPV-based design.

[1]  P. Boyle.  Options: A Monte Carlo approach , 1977 .

[2]  Gonzalo Cortazar,et al.  Chapter 9 – Optimal exploration investments under price and geological—technical uncertainty: a real options model , 2003 .

[3]  L. Trigeorgis.  The Nature of Option Interactions and the Valuation of Investments with Multiple Real Options , 1993, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[4]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Finite Difference Methods and Jump Processes Arising in the Pricing of Contingent Claims: A Synthesis , 1977 .

[5]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty. , 1994 .

[6]  J. Whittle,et al.  A decade of open pit mine planning and optimization - The craft of turning algorithms into packages , 1999 .

[7]  A. Soares.  Direct Sequential Simulation and Cosimulation , 2001 .

[8]  D. Siegel,et al.  Option Valuation of Claims on Real Assets: The Case of Offshore Petroleum Leases , 1988 .

[9]  R. Voeks.  Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation , 1997 .

[10]  P. Glasserman,et al.  Pricing American-style securities using simulation , 1997 .

[11]  To Open Or Not To Open-Or What To Do With A Closed Copper Mine , 2002 .

[12]  F. Black,et al.  The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  J. Mardones,et al.  Option valuation of real assets: Application to a copper mine with operating flexibility , 1993 .

[14]  R. Dimitrakopoulos,et al.  Managing risk and waste mining in long-term production scheduling of open-pit mines , 2004 .

[15]  Roussos Dimitrakopoulos,et al.  Moving forward from traditional optimization: grade uncertainty and risk effects in open-pit design , 2002 .

[16]  M. Slade.  Valuing Managerial Flexibility: An Application of Real-Option Theory to Mining Investments , 2001 .

[17]  Francis A. Longstaff,et al.  Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least-Squares Approach , 2001 .

[18]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Evaluating Natural Resource Investments , 1985 .

[19]  S. A. Abdel Sabour,et al.  Valuing Real Capital Investments Using The Least-Squares Monte Carlo Method , 2006 .

[20]  J. Barraquand.  Numerical valuation of high dimensional multivariate European securities , 1995 .

[21]  Jérôme Barraquand,et al.  Numerical Valuation of High Dimensional Multivariate American Securities , 1995, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[22]  G. Davis,et al.  Valuing uncertain asset cash flows when there are no options: A real options approach , 2005 .

[23]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Optimal Exploration Investments Under Price and Geological-Technical Uncertainty: A Real Options Model , 2000 .

[24]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  The Valuation of American Put Options , 1977 .

[25]  R. Poulin,et al.  Valuing management flexibility : A basis to compare the standard DCF and MAP valuation frameworks , 1998 .

[26]  S. Ross,et al.  Option pricing: A simplified approach☆ , 1979 .

[27]  S. Painter.  Numerical Method for Conditional Simulation of Levy Random Fields , 1998 .

[28]  Simone Kelly,et al.  A binomial lattice approach for valuing a mining property IPO , 1998 .

[29]  Roussos Dimitrakopoulos,et al.  Generalized Sequential Gaussian Simulation on Group Size ν and Screen-Effect Approximations for Large Field Simulations , 2004 .

[30]  Raman Uppal,et al.  Valuing risk and flexibility: A comparison of methods , 1996 .

[31]  J. M. Schumacher,et al.  An irregular grid method for high-dimensional free-boundary problems in finance , 2004, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[32]  Henrik Andersson,et al.  The stochastic behaviour of commodity prices , 2003 .

[33]  Chan S. Park,et al.  Decision Making Under Uncertainty—Real Options to the Rescue? , 2002 .

[34]  Peter Tufano,et al.  When are Real Options Exercised? An Empirical Study of Mine Closings , 2000 .

[35]  Ricardo Ernst,et al.  An Economic Model for Evaluating Mining and Manufacturing Ventures with Output Yield Uncertainty , 2001, Oper. Res..