Budgets capital costs

The entire remediation budget for the San lose solvent site was 948,000 for capital costs and 1,172,000 per year for operation and maintenance costs. The budget included remediation activities using several different technologies. The SIVE pilot test was estimated to cost 100/yd (D19966K, p. 3 D10330Q, p. 10). 

Based on the product profile a cost benefit analysis can be calculated. Such an analysis helps in deciding whether, under the given circumstances, a potential product is sufficiently attractive to develop and which indication for the new compound is more or less attractive. It is mainly a means to prioritize and to compare the particular development product with other products under development or under consideration. This may be necessary since several development candidates may compete for the same resources, such as personnel, development budget, capital investment and production capacity. 

In this chapter some approximate capital costs are presented in order to make a preliminary analysis of the cost of an acid gas injection scheme. The information in this chapter comes from a combination of the authors experience and published cost data [such as Ulrich and Vasudevan (2004)]. Some additional cost information was taken from Louie (2009). The cost data presented in this chapter are budget costs, 25% (and perhaps not even that accurate). 

The total cost of corrosion to the U.S. federal government was estimated to be 8 billion out of which capital cost is 6 billion and maintenance cost is 2 billion. The total corrosion costs represent 2% of the total federal budget of 400 billion. 

When capital cost estimates of a definitive investment are required to obtain budget authorization, competitive quotes from vendors have to be requested, as these quotes are the most reliable estimates. 

Order of magnitude capital costs are presented for each option. These costs are not to be used for budgeting purposes they are intended for a general comparison of the options presented in this report. The cost results are shown in Table 4. 

However, there were a few attempts to evaluate the operation costs of PMRs in terms of energy consumption. For example, Ryu et al (2005) performed an energy cost analysis of a PMR applied for removal of humic acids, dyes and 4-chlorophenol from water (Table 21.4). The pilot scale PMR was composed of a 500 dm reactor with MF submerged membranes (effective surface area of 8 m ) above which UV-A lamps were positioned (365 nm, 300 W). In the bottom of the reactor an air blower was mounted. The permeation was conducted by means of a suction pump. The PMR was found by the authors to be cost effective (9.65 kWh/m ) compared to other conventional processes. However, it was also noted that many terms including capital cost, membrane replacement and maintenance should be also considered to build a complete budget (Ryu et aL, 2005). Such an economic analysis of various membrane systems and applications was recently discussed by Calabrb and Basile (2011). 

Organizations nsnally keep a variety of records which docnment operating and capital costs. These records assist the organization in determining the efficiencies and effectiveness of their bnsiness sections. They also assist with determining budget planning A portion of these records may involve costs associated with occupational health and safety. The costs of various elements of loss control-for example, security, workers compensation or fire - can be broken down for each centre or department to assess performance. 

As the organization implements occupational safety measures, it must establish timelines for completing the associated tasks. This portion of the occupational safety implementation process should consider the abilities of staff members and the time that is realistically necessary to complete projects. The amount of preparation required to implement occupational safety measures may limit their immediate achievability. If the occupational safety measure bears no capital cost, such as policy and procedural changes, or can be incorporated into a new project, the countermeasure can often be implemented immediately. When countermeasures require advance budgeting or coordination with outside vendors, implementation may be delayed. 

Last, but by no means least, in this series of decisions, comes the matter of cost, which takes effect at a number of levels. First, there is the capital cost of the equipment, which may be the deciding factor if a tight capital spending budget exists. However, much to be preferred is a cost decision based on lifecycle costs - the sum of the basic machine, plus a lifetime supply of spare parts and a lifetime cost of maintenance. A cheap filter that needs a small fortune spent on it for replacement filter elements should obviously not be chosen over a more expensive machine with long lasting media. 

Finance. Cost accounting, budget control, payroU, records, accounts payable, accounts receivable, capital equipment control, taxes, customs, iasurance, loss control, and management information are all part of the finance function. 

The same money invested in a project with a (DCFRR) of 10 percent would, by Eq. (9-108), obtain an entrepreneurial return i = 8.37 percent on the whole investment, i.e., 8.37/ 100. Investment of the entrepreneur s own money would only achieve an aftertax return of (0.1)(1 — 0.40) = 6 percent on 50, or 3/ 100 of total investment. The incentive to the entrepreneur to manage the projeci thus corresponds to a tax-free income of 5.37/ 100 of total investment. In practice, money is borrowed from more than one source at different interest rates and at different tax liabihties. The effective cost of capital in such cases can be obtained by an extension of the above reasoning and is treated in detail by A. J. Merrett and A. Sykes Capital Budgeting and Company Finance, Longmans, London, 1966, pp. 30 8). 

The capital, operating, maintenance and fuel costs come from four separate budgets, possibly accounted for by four different managers, so these budgets need to be adjusted. Separate fuel meters are needed to prove the savings, which might otherwise be held in question. 

---