ARMZ Uranium Holding, Moscow, Russia:

A. A. Mikhailovsky, Economic Manager

Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas (National Research University), Moscow, Russia:
E. S. Melekhin, Professor, Doctor of Economic Sciences

Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University):
I. Yu. Novoselova, Doctor of Economic Sciences, iunov2010@yandex.ru

The article deals with the actual problem of developing an economic and mathematical tool for assessing the preference of investment projects, taking into account the multidirectional development goals of the uranium mining enterprise. This problem is highly relevant for uranium mines since the fall in spot prices for uranium, the rise in prices for basic materials and a change in the geological conditions lead to a decrease in investment attractiveness. To overcome this dangerous trend, it is necessary to implement investment projects for introducing new technological solutions (changing technological regimes, searching for analogous materials, etc.) that will reduce the cost of uranium products. Comprehensive assessment of such projects is carried out according to three criteria: economic efficiency of investments, production diversification, and strategic development. The authors set three logically and informationally related tasks that allow you to find the preference of investment projects: the calculation of the priority criteria; evaluation of the projects under consideration for each of the criteria; quantitative determination of project preference. Evaluation of projects by the first criterion is based on the calculation of net present value. The other two criteria are evaluated using an examination procedure. To conduct an expert assessment, a fuzzy scale has been developed, based on the T. Saati scale. Expert estimates based on fuzzy (triangular) numbers make it possible to more reliably estimate the relevance of the investment projects under consideration from the perspective of three criteria. The authors have developed algorithms for solving problems, which are illustrated by a numerical example. The numerical example reflects the integrated assessment of six projects according to three criteria, each step of the algorithm is illustrated in tables and calculation procedures.
The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Project No. 18–010–00108: Economic Analysis, Forecasting and Settlement of Conflicts in Mineral Wealth Use.

1. Tsirel S. V., Noskov V. A., Korchak P. A., Zhukova S. A. Evaluation of economic efficiency of rock mass geodynamics prediction and control. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2017. No. 3. pp. 26–31. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2017.03.05
2. Novoselov A. L., Novoselova I. Yu., Melekhin E. S. Economic evaluation of mineral resources with adjusting for risk and uncertainty. Mineralnye resursy Rossii. Ekonomika i upravlenie. 2014. No. 6. pp. 29–33.
3. Brigham E. F., Houston J. F. Fundamentals of Financial Management. 14th ed. Boston : Cengage Learning, 2016. 816 p.
4. Dushin A. V., Yurak V. V. Authors’ approach to the Total Economic Value: Essentials, structure, evolution. Eurasian Mining. 2018. No. 1. pp. 11–15. DOI: 10.17580/em.2018.01.03
5. Mikhaylovskiy A. A. Application of financial-and economic-modeling to indentifying and calculating key indexes of innovation project efficiency in mining industry. Innovatsii i investitsii. 2016. No. 5. pp. 23–26.
6. Koller T., Goedhart M., Wessels D. Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies. 6^th ed. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, 2015. 848 p.
7. Gulyaev P. V. Financial system specificity in mining regions. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2017. No. 7. pp. 51–54. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2017.07.09
8. Sannikov V. N., Lutsenko N. I. Dalur is the first in-situ leaching uranium mine in Russia. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2017. No. 8. pp. 23–27. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2017.08.04
9. Chen J., Zhao Y., Song Q., Zhou Z., Yang S. Exploration and Mining Evaluation System and Price Prediction of Uranium Resources. Mining of Mineral Deposits. 2018. Vol. 12, Iss. 1. pp. 85–94.
10. Hutsaliuk A. N. The criterion of economic efficiency of structural changes in corporate integration processes. Economic theory and law : Collected works. Kharkiv : Pravo, 2016. No. 2(25). pp. 104–106.
11. Results of the State Corporation «Rosatom» activity for 2017 : annual public report. Available at: https://rosatom.ru/upload/iblock/e5d/e5d0fefbd69c8d8a779ef817be2a63d0.pdf (accessed: 17.01.2019)
12. Gasparian M. S., Kiseleva I. A., Korneev D. G., Lebedev S. A., Lebedev V. A. Strategic analysis of risks when implementing investment projects. Espacios. 2018. Vol. 39, No. 27. p. 16.
13. Zadeh L. A., Fu K.-S., Tanaka K., Shimura M. Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision processes : Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Seminar on Fuzzy Sets a nd Their Applications. New York : Academic Press, 1975. 506 p.
14. Hodgett R. E. Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2016. Vol. 85, Iss. 5–8. pp. 1145–1157.