A mining company is considering a new project. Because the mine has received a permit, the project would be legal; but it would cause significant harm to a nearby river. The firm could spend an additional $10.33 million at Year 0 to mitigate the environmental Problem, but it would not be required to do so. Developing the mine (without mitigation) would cost $63 million, and the expected net cash inflows would be $21 million per year for 5 years. If the firm does invest in mitigation, the annual inflows would be $22 million. The risk-adjusted WACC is 13%.

1. Calculate the NPV and IRR with mitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Do not round your intermediate calculations. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10, 550,000 should be entered as 10.55.
2. Calculate the NPV and IRR without mitigation. Round your answers to two decimal places. Do not round your intermediate calculations. Enter your answer for NPV in millions. For example, an answer of $10, 550,000 should be entered as 10.55.

3. How should the environmental effects be dealt with when this project is evaluated?

a. The environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur.
b. The environmental effects if not mitigated could result in additional loss of cash flows and/or fines and penalties due to ill will among customers, community, etc. Therefore, even though the mine is legal without mitigation, the company needs to make sure that they have anticipated all costs in the "no mitigation" analysis from not doing the environmental mitigation.
c. The environmental effects should be ignored since the mine is legal without mitigation.
d. The environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored.
e. The environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. Therefore, since the mine is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis.