
HI6006 Competitive Strategy Editing Service
Delivery in day(s): 4
The table below summarises the optimal cost of purchasing crude oil products for supply to the Fredonia state in the next 20 years
Year | Country | Number of ships | Total cost incurred |
1 | Saudi Arabia | 6 | |
USA | 5 | ||
Australia | 1 | $481,300,000.00 | |
2 | Saudi Arabia | 6 | |
USA | 5 | ||
Australia | 1 | $488,624,750.00 | |
3 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $502,140,936.25 | |
4 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $509,772,091.85 | |
5 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $517,529,783.73 | |
6 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $525,416,113.16 | |
7 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $533,433,216.40 | |
8 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $541,583,265.20 | |
9 | Saudi Arabia | 6 | |
Dubai | 1 | ||
USA | 5 | ||
Australia | 1 | $580,884,070.91 | |
10 | Saudi Arabia | 5 | |
USA | 5 | ||
Australia | 3 | $589,320,247.09 | |
11 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $566,853,348.15 | |
12 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $575,557,628.43 | |
13 | Saudi Arabia | 7 | |
USA | 5 | $584,406,267.13 | |
14 | Saudi Arabia | 4 | |
Dubai | 1 | ||
USA | 5 | ||
Australia | 2 | $566,514,092.12 | |
15 | Saudi Arabia | 4 | |
USA | 6 | ||
Australia | 2 | $578,475,346.31 | |
16 | Saudi Arabia | 5 | |
USA | 5 | ||
Australia | 1 | $549,557,209.64 | |
17 | Saudi Arabia | 5 | |
USA | 5 | ||
Australia | 1 | $558,094,003.10 | |
18 | Saudi Arabia | 6 | |
USA | 5 | $573,861,050.27 | |
19 | Saudi Arabia | 2 | |
USA | 6 | ||
Australia | 3 | $550,425,147.55 | |
20 | Saudi Arabia | 5 | |
USA | 5 | $533,019,327.11 |
Year | Gasoline revenue | Diesel revenue | Refinery cost | Cost of purchases | Net Cashflow |
0 |
|
| -$10,000,000.00 | ||
1 | $2,225,475,000.00 | $762,431,250.00 | $164,850,000.00 | $481,300,000.00 | $2,341,756,250.00 |
2 | $2,301,775,410.38 | $788,571,205.41 | $167,322,750.00 | $488,624,750.00 | $2,434,399,115.78 |
3 | $2,380,691,780.32 | $815,607,369.18 | $169,832,591.25 | $502,140,936.25 | $2,524,325,622.00 |
4 | $2,462,313,798.01 | $843,570,467.84 | $172,380,080.12 | $509,772,091.85 | $2,623,732,093.88 |
5 | $2,546,734,226.57 | $872,492,281.33 | $174,965,781.32 | $517,529,783.73 | $2,726,730,942.85 |
6 | $2,634,049,009.53 | $902,405,679.19 | $177,590,268.04 | $525,416,113.16 | $2,833,448,307.52 |
7 | $2,724,357,379.82 | $933,344,657.90 | $180,254,122.06 | $533,433,216.40 | $2,944,014,699.26 |
8 | $2,817,761,972.59 | $965,344,379.50 | $182,957,933.89 | $541,583,265.20 | $3,058,565,153.00 |
9 | $2,914,368,941.82 | $998,441,211.55 | $185,702,302.90 | $580,884,070.91 | $3,146,223,779.56 |
10 | $3,014,288,080.99 | $1,032,672,768.49 | $188,487,837.44 | $589,320,247.09 | $3,269,152,764.94 |
11 | $3,117,632,947.85 | $1,068,077,954.35 | $191,315,155.01 | $566,853,348.15 | $3,427,542,399.05 |
12 | $3,224,520,993.46 | $1,104,697,007.02 | $194,184,882.33 | $575,557,628.43 | $3,559,475,489.72 |
13 | $3,335,073,695.72 | $1,142,571,543.91 | $197,097,655.57 | $584,406,267.13 | $3,696,141,316.94 |
14 | $3,449,416,697.38 | $1,181,744,609.29 | $200,054,120.40 | $566,514,092.12 | $3,864,593,094.15 |
15 | $3,567,679,948.85 | $1,222,260,723.22 | $203,054,932.20 | $578,475,346.31 | $4,008,410,393.56 |
16 | $3,689,997,855.90 | $1,264,165,932.11 | $206,100,756.19 | $549,557,209.64 | $4,198,505,822.18 |
17 | $3,816,509,432.39 | $1,307,507,861.10 | $209,192,267.53 | $558,094,003.10 | $4,356,731,022.85 |
18 | $3,947,358,458.28 | $1,352,335,768.11 | $212,330,151.54 | $573,861,050.27 | $4,513,503,024.58 |
19 | $4,082,693,643.02 | $1,398,700,599.92 | $215,515,103.82 | $550,425,147.55 | $4,715,453,991.58 |
20 | $4,222,668,794.57 | $1,446,655,049.99 | $218,747,830.37 | $533,019,327.11 | $4,917,556,687.08 |
At a discount rate of 10%, the Net Present Value (NPV) is given as
NPV | $26,116,989,970.34 |
While the is | |
IRR | 23419.58% |
At 6% the NPV is $36,796,298,366.68, this value is greater than 0 hence the project is profitable.
On the other hand, at 12% the NPV is obtained as $22,455,372,302.21 which is also greater than 0. This means the project will be profitable will remain profitable when the rate of discount fluctuates between 6% and 12%
Increase in the cost of capital budgeting decreases the NPV while a decrease increases the NPV. The initial capital outlay is negatively proportionate to the profitability of the project.
In cases where the price of gasoline only increases by 1.2% NPV will drop to $25,966,112,240.31. This indicates a fall in the level of profitability by 0.5777%.
The maximum number of ships that the firm will need from Saudi Arabia in a single year will be 7. A drop in the maximum number of ships available from Saudi Arabia from 20 to 14 still allows the firm to obtain 7 ships. This means there will be no impact on profitability as the firm will not need to review its crude oil supply structure.
The increase in shipment cost from Australia from $ 1.8 to $ 2.5 per barrel will increase the cost of purchases which in turn will leads to a drop in the profits of the refinery products.
1. Allen-Zhu, Z. & Orecchia, L., 2015. Using Optimization to Break the Epsilon Barrier: A Faster and Simpler Width-Independent Algorithm for Solving Positive Linear Programs in Parallel.s.l.:ACM-SIAM Symposium.
2. Gerard, S. & Ghosh, D., 2010. Networks in; Springer, Text and Computer Exercises inComputer NetworkOptimization,s.l.: Springer.
3. Sierksma, G. & Zwols, Y., 2015. Linear and Integer Optimization.Third ed. s.l.:CRC Press.