Burundi - Nickel Exploration - Engineering Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 7273 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT BURUNDI NICKEL EXPLORATION/ENGINEERING PROJECT (CREDIT 1154-BU) June 6, 1988 Industry Department This docunent has a restricted distributio- and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  COUNTRY EXCHANGE RATES Name of Currency (abbreviation): Burundi Franc (FBu) Year Exchange Rate 1980, Appraisal Year Average US$1 - FBu 90 1981, Year Average US$1 - FBu 90 1982, Year Average US$1 - FBu 90 1983, Year Average US$1 FBu 92.75 1984, Year Average US$1 = FBu 119.71 1985, Completion Year Average US$1 = FBu 120.69 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Tonne = 1,000 Kilograms Tonne = 2,204.6 Pounds TOE = 10.2 million kcal TOE = 40.5 million BTU Hectare = 10,000 square meters Hectare = 2.471 U.S. acre ABBREVIATIONS DANIDA - Danish Foreign Aid Program EundB - Exploration und Bergbau FIM - Finnish Mark FINNIDA - Finnish International Development Agency GOB - Government of Burundi MPWEM - Burundi Ministry of Public Works, Energy and Mines ONATOUR - Burundi National Peat Bureau ROR - Rate of Return TOE - Tonnes Oil Equivalent UNDP - United Nations Development Program UOP - Universal Oil Products  FOR OFFCIAL U ONLY THE WORLD SANK Washington. O.C. 20433 U.S.A. once of o"toreol Opwatum. lvabaatww' June 6, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Bu.4ndi - Nickel Exploration/ Engineering Prolect (Credit 1154-BU) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled 'Project Completion Report on Burundi - Nickel Exploration/Engineering Project (Credit 1154-BU)" prepared by the former Industry Department and revised by the Africa Regional Office. Further evaluation of this project by the Operations Evaluation Department has not been made. Attachment This document has a esticted distribution and may be used by recipients onlY in the perfonmance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authonzstion.  FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT BURUNDI - NICKEL EXPLORATION/ENGINEERING PROJECT CREDIT 1154-BU TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Preface ........................................................ i Basic Data Sheet ......................................... ii Highlights ..iv I. INTRODUCTION .. II. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, PREPARATION AND APPRAISAL ....... 2 III. IMPLEMENTATION. 4 IV. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS. 6 V. OPERATING PERFORMANCE .10 VI. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE .13 VII. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT .13 VIII. CONCLUSIONS... 14 Tables I. Project Cost.... 7 II. Sources of Project Financing... 8 III. Actual Disbursement Schedule . . 9 IV. Comparison of Exploration Results . . .11 V. Pertinent Data for Financial Analysis . . .14 Annexes 1. List of Major Reports ............................. 15 2. Comments from the Borrower ..19 Map Burundi Nickel and Peat Deposits ..22 |This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their offlcia! duties. its contents rnay not otherwise be disclosed without World Bankc authorization.  PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT BURUNDI - NICKEL EXPLORATION/ENGINEERING PROJECT (Credit 1154-BU) PREFACE The IDA Credit 1154-BU (SDR 3.3 million, US$4.0 million equivalent) provided financing to develop and analyze the basic data needed to reformulate the large-scale Musongati Nickel Development Project --including nickel exploration, trial peat production and engineering studies, with the view of establishing a financially, technically and economically viable project. The project was implemented satisfactorily by the Ministry of Public Work, Energy and Mines formerly known as "Ministry of Energy and Mines" with the assistance of various consultants. Credit Agreement was amended in October 1985 to reflect two major changes in the scope of the project: (i) due to lack of firm evidence to confirm the existence of high grade zone, the number of holes to be drilled in Stage II was reduced from 100 to 50; and (ii) the information developed during the execution of the nickel exploration component (the deposit proved less rich than anticipated) coupled with a poor nickel market resulted in cancellation of the engineering studies component. The Government of Burundi has prepared a PCR which has been translated. This document is in broad agreement with this report and provides more detail in some areas (such as work done prior to the project or changes in nickel prices). Whenever relevant, these details have been incorporated into the present report. In accordance with the revised procedures for project performance audit reporting, this PCR was read by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED), but the project was not audited by OED staff. Following standard procedures, OED sent copies of the draft report to the Borrower for comments. These comments have been taken into account in finalizing the report and are reproduced in Annex 2.  -ii- t. Y= 0IEfl(!N REPOE HiMhIBlI - NICKEL EN P RaW (aD1rr 1154-3U) BASIC DM SML-t Credit Positic_ ------- As of 01/31/88 - - Orgflal Disbursed C anced Repad Outstaning Credit 1154-lJ /a 4.0 3.41 0.10 0.0 4.39 Ciwlative Disbursement FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 (i) plarmi 2.5 1.1 0.4 - - (ii) actual 0.2 1.7 1.2 0.3 0.5 (iii) (ii) as % of (i) 8.0 154.5 300.0 - - CUM PRWCT DE origial Plan pevisi4xw Actual First ention in Files - - 10/01,80 Board Approval 06/02/81 - 05/28/81 Credit tgreet Date - - 07/15/81 Effectiveness Date 10/31/81 05/12/82 08/31/82 Closing Date 06/30/84 12/31/85 12/31/85 Total Project Cost (US$ M) 7.27 7.77 I. Maigement Assistance 0.43 0.80 II. Nickel Exploraton 2.38 2.43 III. Enigieering Studies b/ 1.01 - IV. Trial Peat Production 3.44 3.92 V. Added by Amedrrents - 0.62 Cost Overwmunderrun (ex c]ndIx III & V) - +13% Completion of PRsical Coexont bJ 02/83 04/85 Time Overnm - 110% Finncial Rate of Return Not applicable Economic Rate of Return NDt applicable Institutionl PerfornZme Good a/ Cancelled is shown at the original exchange rate of Board approval; disbursed at the exchange rate applicable ort the transaction dates; outstanding at the exchange rate of January 31, 1988. b/ The Engineering StudieG (Parts C, D, E, F, G & H of Schedule 2 of the Development Credit Agreement were cancelled. Nickel Exploration (Part A) and Trial Peat Production (Part B) were completed.  -lli- STAFF INPUT (Staffweeks) FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 Total Preappraisal 9.0 - 9.0 Appraisal 31.2 - - - - 31.2 Negotiations 2.6 - - - - - 2.6 Supervisions 0.3 22.3 23.1 13.9 5.4 3.6 68.6 Other - - - - - 1.5 1.5 Total 112.9 MISSION DATA Sent Month/ No. of No. of Date of Item Year Weeks Persons Man-Weeks Report Appraisal INDD1 12/80 2.0 2 4.0 12/18/80 Supervision I INDDI 11/81 0.6 2 1.2 11/16/8' Supervision II INDDI 01/83 2.0 2 4.0 02/17/83 PPDES 01/83 2.0 1 2.0 02/24/83 Supervision III INDDl 10/83 1.0 1 1.0 11/16/83 Supervisi)n IV INDDI 04/84 0.9 1 0.9 05/07.'4 Supervision V INDDI 06/85 1.6 1 1.6 07/26/85 OTHER DATA Borrower: Republic of Burundi Executing Agency: Original Name, Ministry of Energy and Mines Present Name, Ministry of Public Works, Energy and Mines Fiscal Year of Borrower: January 1-December 31  PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT BURUNDI - NICKEL EXPLORATION/ENGINEERING PROJECT (CREDIT 1154-BU) HIGHLIGHTS Prior to independence, the share of mining sector in the economy of Burundi wab instgnificant--less than 0.5% of GDP. Since 1968, the Government--w;ith technical and financial assistance from bilateral sources- has been undertaking extensive exploration of Burundi's mineral potential, particularly peat and nickel occurrences, with the objective of developing sufficient informstion to attract foreign investment. The Nickel Exploration/Engineering project, initiated in late 1970s at the Government's request, was designed to support the Government's objectives, namely to confirm the availability of cheap indigenous energy in the form of peat, and the existence of a high grade zone which could be min_.:d in the early years of operation (paras. 1-5). The project was appraised in November 1980 and consisted of three major components--two of which were to be done in parallel and were to be virtually completed before starting the third component. The two were (i) exploration of a high grade nickel zone at Musongati, and (ii) a trial production of peat from the Akanyaru Bogs. The third component was to be a group of five engineering studies. Recognizing the inherent risks in mineral resource development, the project was phased so that the result of each phase had to be evaluated before eommitting the next phase of work (paras. 7, 11 and 16). There was over one year delay between the Credit signing (July 15, 1981) and its effectiveness on August 31, 1982, due to (i) time required to secure the financing package, (ii) and lack of agreement between IDA and the GOB on a consulting firm to manage the nickel component. The overall project completion schedule was delayed by about 2 years and resulted in a cost overrun of 13% (paras. 17-20 and 25). During project execution, two major changes in scope occurred: (i) the results of drilling and sampling in the high grade zone indicated that the zone was not as rich as originally believed (25% less nickel and 23% less tonnes of ore, or 42% less tonnes of nickel in the high grade zone), therefore, it was agreed to reduce the number of holes to be drilled in Stage II from 100 holes to 50; and (ii) the marginal nature of the orebody coupled with lower market price for nickel, reduced the poential attractiveness of this deposit to prospective mining investors, hence GOB and IDA agreed to cancel the engineering study component. Part of the funds released as a result of this cancellation were used to: (i) support development of the other minerals; (ii) decommission the suction dredge (used for peat excavation trials) for safe storage and future use; (iii) supplement financing for the services of the nickel component manager; and (iv) prepare and reproduce a report reviewing work done on the Musongati deposit (paras. 21, 22).  -v- On the whole, the Nickel Exploration and the Peat Production Trial Components achieved their objectives. The former led to the decision not to execute the Engineering Studies component at that time, and the latter demonstrated that peat can be produced from Burundi's valley bogs by dredging, pumping, drying and harvesting the dried peat by conventional peat harvesting techniques if future demand calls for it (paras. 39-40). The economics of peat production (in particular as it relates to its import component) should, however, be carefully reviewed before any final decision.  PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT BRNID1 - NICKRL EXPLORATION/ENG111RIEG PROJECr (CREDIT 1154 BU) I . INTRODUCTION 1. Burundi's mining sector . the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Works, Energy and Mines (MPWEM). Prior to independence, there were several small mining operations. These shipped cassiterite (tin), and bastnaesite (rare earths) concentrates. They were not a significant factor in Burundi's economy--less than 0.5X of GDP. In recent years, these opera- tions have ceased. The Ministry, with bilateral assistance, has pursued the exploration of occurrences of tin, gold, rare earth, vanadium, phospho- rus, peat, nickel and cement raw materials. In recent years, a private company has explored for oil. With the exception of oil, occurrences of all these minerals have been confirmed but none have been developed into a producing mine. The work to date has only defined the mineral potential. The mining sector, with the exception of a small construction material operation and peat, makes no contribution to the Burundi economy. 2. The Government's aimn he" been the development of the identified mineral potential. In the past, the major emphasis had been on the peat and nickel occurrences. More recently the emphasis shifted to tin, gold and rare earths. 3. In 1968, UNDP geologists first realized the geological potential for nickel in Burundi. Surface sampling strengthened this bel'ef. Drill- ing campaigns in 1973 and 1976, financed by the UNDP, clearly established the existence of nickel occurrences in the surface laterites in three areas, Musongati, Waga and Nyabikere (see attached map). The Musongati area indicated the greatest potential. Based on this preliminary exploration, the UNDP in 1978 financed laboratory metallurgical tests and a pre-feasibility study. The study results were favorable (due to some rather optimistic assumptions) and led the Government of Burundi (GOB) in 1980 to finance pilot plant tests on about 700 tonnes of Musongati ore. Proposals to put the nickel deposits into exploitation have been closely associated with the study of Burundi's peat potential. 4. Burundi has two kinds of peat bogs: highland bogs, which can be drained and harvested by conventional technology and much more extensive valley bogs which car.not be totally drained and, therefore, the peat must be dredged and pumped to a dry area to drain and dry before conventional equipment can harvest it. With bilateral aid, the National Peat Bureau (ONATOUR) has developed a 15,000 tonne per year peat operation harvesting highland bogs. But only the valley bogs would be large enough to support a full industry such as a nickel plant. 5. The Bank has followed and commented on these activities. It did not, however, share the Government's optimistic view of nickel potential. Primarily, it did not believe sufficient exploration had  -2- been done to firmly establish the tonnage and nickel content of the nickel occurrence. However, both IDA and GOB believed that confirming two key features--the availability of cheap energy in the form of local peat and the existence of a high-grade zone which could be mined in the early years--would be necessary to make this deposit attractive for investment by international mining companies, financial institutions and the Government. The exploration/engineering credit under review here was intended to confirm these two features and to develop the information needed to make a sound decision on proceeding to a full bankable feasibility study. 6. The Ministry of Public Works, Energy dId Mines was the executing agency for this project. The Department of Geology and Mines had responsibility for the nickel component and ONATOUR, a parastatal reporting to the Ministry, had responsibility for the peat component. A Finnish consulting company was engaged to manage the peat work and a firm from the Federal Republic of Germany was engaged to manage the nickel work. 7. The project consisted of three major components--two of which would be done in parallel and be virtually completed before starting the third. The two were exploration of a high-grade nickel zone at Musongati and a trial production of peat from the Akanyaru Bogs. The third component would be a group of engineering 3tudies. 8. As originally conceived, the project required US$7.27 million of financing. The Burundi Government financed all local costs. The Republic of Finland (FINNIDA), UNDP and IDA agreed to finance the foreign costs of the peat component. IDA agreed to finance the foreign costs of the nickel component and the engineering studies. 9. Circumstances developed which justified cancelling the engineering studies (see para 21) and allocating a part of these IDA funds to support the Ministry's plans to develop other mineral potential in Burundi. 10. The project had an extensive prologue which developed a number of major reports The project itself, though abbreviated, produced numerous reports. A 1 v of all significant documents is given in Annex I. II. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION _PREPARZAION AND APPRAISAL 11. Project preparation was materially advanced by previous work on peat development financed by FINNIDA (excuted by a Finnish consulting company) and on nickel prospects financed by GOB (executed by an American consulting company). A study of international and internal transportation and a study of the alternative use of coal from Kalemie (Zaire) were originally proposed and dropped because, in IDA's view, they were not part of the "minimum" information required at this time to assess the viability of large-scale nickel development. R.ecognizing the inherent risks in mineral resource development, the project was phased so that the result of each phase had to be evaluated before committing the next phase of work.  -3- 12. A financial/economical analysis of the full Musongati nickel orojectl/ (real4zed in 1978-79 by a US consulting firm on the basis of studies then existing) was a critical feature of IDA's appraisal. The analysis (in 1979 US dollars) indicated a 10-11% financial ROR and a 12-13% economic ROR on a US$1,027 million investment, if ore containing 2.2% nickel and peat, delivered at Musongati for US$75 per tonne, were available. If the project could demonstrate that this quality of ore and price of peat were indeed tenable, it was believed that the international mining community could be attracted to make the investment required to develop the Muaongati Nickel Project.2/ 13. The principal goal of the exploration/engineering project was to confirm the high-grade ore quality and availability, and to confirm that peat could be delivered to a future nickel plant in quantity, quality and price that was assumed in the financial analysis at the appraisal time. The project consisted of three major components: (i) nickel exploration, (ii) peat studies, and (iii) engineering studies. 14. The nickel exploration component consisted of first drilling and sampling 50 new holes in a high-grade zone which had been identified at Musongati by earlier exploration. If these first 50 holes yielded satisfactory results, an additional 100 holes were to be drilled. 15. The peat component also had two steps. The first was a Bog Survey to sample and confirm the peat reserves at Buyongwe and Ndurumu and to develop a detailed plan for a test excavation of peat. The second was the execution of a peat production trial using equipment which could be safely scaled up to a full commercial operation. This second step would also help to prepare preliminary estimates of the amount, characteristics and cost of del4-'-4" neat to a nickel plant at Musongati. 16. The third componert (as designed originally) consisted of five engineering studies, to be initiated after the results of the nickel and peat components were available. The studies were to develop more information on: (i) the minability of the high-grade zone, (ii) the potential of hydroelectric sites which might be dedicated to the Musongati nickel project, (iii) the suitability of processes for extracting nickel from Musongati lateritic ore, (iv) the availability of sulfur, an input required for several extraction processes, and (v) the updated review of the Musongati nickel project viability. During negotiations to obtain UNDP cofinancing, the alternate fuel study (i.e. Kalemie (Zaire) coal) was reintroduced into the program. 1/ In addition to nickel mine, plant facilities, and peat processing facilities, the project included a large hydroelectric project with 13' MW of installed capacity and 74 km transmission line; construction of 185 km new railroad from Musongati south to link up with the existing railroad in Tanzania, and upgrading of 160 km highway from Butumburo to Musongati as well as upgrading of 175 km of the navigaEion system on Lake Tanganyika. 2/ The studies undertaken prior to this project are reviewed in the Government's PCR.  -4- III. IMPLEMENTATION 17. The credit was signed in July 1981, but credit effectiveness was delayed more than a year by two problems--lack of full financing, and agreement on a consulting firm to manage the nickel component. The delay was caused by IDA's condition that the financing package be fully firmed up prior to credit effectiveness. After the project scope was fully defined by the Ministry, FINNIDA and IDA, the Government of Denmark (DANIDA) did not believe there was a role for them which fit into their aid program and withdrew. The credit was declared effective only after the Government guaranteed to finance any short-fall. Shortly after effectiveness, the Ministry's efforts resulted in UNDP agreeing to replace DANIDA in the financing of the peat component. 18. The other problem, which was solved prior to the Government's financing guarantee, was caused by the Ministry's and IDA's difficulties in agreeing on a suitable firm to manage the nickel exploration and engineering studies. After debating the qualification and previous experience of various possible firms, IDA and the Ministry finally agreed in January 1982, on a consulting firm. On August 27, the Government guaranteed to cover the short-fall, and on August 31, 1982, the Credit was declared effective, 14 months after Credit signing. 19. Another significant delay resulted from the loss of parts for the suction dredge used for the peat component. The dredge was shipped through Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Due to a general strike in Uganda, three of the five trucks literally became lost. After investigation along the route, they were found to be under military protection, but neither the Ministry, the consulting firm, nor the transport company were able to learn their fate for three months. This four-month delay complicated the trial production schedule which had to be synchronized with the seasonal rains. 20. Finally, the actual execution of the work also encountered some delays. This resulted in work being completed about 2 years behind the appraisal schedule. Completion Dates Activity Appraisal Actual Delay Nickel Exploration Stage I Sept '82 Dec '83 15 months Stage II Feb '83 Mar '85 25 months Peat Component Bog Survey Oct '81 May '83 19 months Trial Production Mar '83 Aug '85 29 months The work schedule at appraisal was reasonable. However, appraisal failed to account for difficulties in completing the financing package and in  -5- selecting the nickel component manager. Once work started, it took only marginally longer than expected at appraisal. The Government reports calculates that for drilling, appraisal estimates were 26.3 m/day at 232 SDR/m vs actual figures of 24.5 m/day at 275 SDR/m. 21. Two major changes in scope occurred during execution of the project. Both were caused by the unexpected results of nickel exploration. The drilling and sampling in the high-grade zone indicated the zone was not as high-grade as originally believed. The first 50 holes of Stage I did exceed 1.6% nickel content which was a condition for continuing Stage II, but were below the expected 2.2% nickel. It was thus agreed to drill only 50 holes in Stage II rather than the planned 100 holes. The 50 holes of a reduced Stage II confirmed that the high-trade zone had a nickel content of 1.66% at a 0.8% cut-off, where the earlier exp'oration Phase I and II which preceded this project had indicated about 2.2% nickel at a 0.8% cut-off. There was little chance that, under such circumstances, a mining company could be attracted to this deposit. The deposit is marginal (See Section V). This, coupled with lower market price for nickel, led to the IDA/Ministry agreement to cancel the engineering study component. Perhaps in the future, if nickel prices increase, the deposit could attract interest. The engineering studies could more advantageously be cond-ected then. 22. The broad intention of this credit was to assist the Ministry in the development of Burundi's mineral resources. On cancellation of the engineering studies, it was agreed to use part of the IDA funds (i) to support development of other minerals by purchasing geological field and laboratory equipment, by studying the local potential for phosphate use, by executing the first phase of a plan to improve utilization of peat; (ii) to decommission the suction dredge so it is safely stored for future use; (iii) to provide additional financing for the services of the nickel component manager; and (iv) to prepare and print extra copies of a report reviewing work done to date on the Musongati deposit. On November 1, 1985, the Credit Agreement was amended to authorize these changes. 23. The reporting by consultants was satisfactory. The component managers promptly issued well written quarterly progress reports. However, the monthly progress reports by the Ministry were less satisfactory, and often no monthly report was issued for long periods. The Ministry explained that their frequency of reporting was linked to the volume of activities under the project and that reports were prepared only during the drilling phase. 24. A variety of procurement modes were used. FINNIDA financed under its own procedures most of consultants' work, the hiring of Finnish technical experts and the procurement of Finnish peat harvesting equipment. The IDA and UNDP funds were used under the Association's Guidelines for procurement of equipment, works and consultants services. The suction dredge costing about $600,000 was procured through International Competitive Bidding (ICB). Laboratory equipment was procured through international shopping. A small amount of office equipment was procured through local procurement procedures and a few field vehicles  -6- through Local Competitive Bidding (LCB). The manager of the nickel component was selected using the Association's Consultants' guidelines. Shortly after the nickel manager was hired, it was agreed to contract all drilling work rather than buying drilling equipment and hiring a contractor to operate it. The drilling contractor was engaged under limited tendering as defined in Schedule 3, Section B of the Credit Agreement. Except for the difficulty agreeing on the se'1ction of the nickel component manager, procurement was without serious problems. 25. It is difficult to compare the projected overall costs with the actual costs of an altered program. It is, however, evident that delays did cause some cost overruns in the activities which were completed. The costs for exe_uted components had about a 13% overrun and mostly due to underestimation of the man-hours required to manage the nickel and peat activities. Generally, the management overrun was due to difficulty in getting the project started. The nickel manager used more time than had been anticipated during appraisal. The firm insisted on maintaining an administrative office with one expatriate and two locals full-time in Bujumbura to support one. and occasionally two, of the firm's geologists at Musongati. They believed this office was necessary in order to facilitate mobilization-demobilization, local procurement, project accounting and liaison with the Government. This was not anticipated at appraisal because the drilling contractor was given responsibility for operating the camp at Musongati and the Ministry was expected to give support to the geologist, if necessary, by contracting part-time for a Burundian service group to handle sample shipments. nV. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS 26. Completing the foreign cost financing package delayed project effectiveness. At appraisal, it was believed that Denmark would participate. However, after DANIDA dropp d out, it took some time to arrange for UNDP to join as co-financier to complete the project financing. At effectiveness, IDA offered SDR 3.3 million (US$4 million equivalent), FINNIDA offered FIM 7.2 million (US$1.8 million equivalent) and the UNDP offered US$0.84 million, for foreign cost financing. During implementation, FINNIDA made two additional grants increasing their total support to FIM 10.51 million (US$1.947 million equivalent). All of the FINNIDA funds were disbursed, but US$2,331 of UNDP and SDR 0.08 (US$0.10 million equivalent) of IDA funds were cancelled due primarily to changes in project scope. 27. GOB offered to finance all local costs. Moreover, in order to prevent further delay of effectiveness, the Government pledged to finance any foreign exchange short-fall. However, the UNDP financing made it unnecessary for the Government to make any direct contribution of foreign exchange. Table II summarizes the financing by activities for all contributors and Table III summarizes the disbursement schedule of all contributors. Because of delays in effectiveness and implementation, disbursement extended about two years beyond the appraisal schedule.  - 7- TabLe I 1mnwy of project ants EWiavetwt U# MilLin Avrai1ea Estimate a/ AtuaL Actiwity roreign LncaL Total Foreign Locat Totat 1r_nt ew leLst Exptoratiom 0.42 0.01 0.43 0.699 0.103 0.802 lckeLt Exptoration Services 1.43 0.12 1.54 1.789 0.399 2.188 Equipnt 0.66 0.17 0.84 0.234 0.008 0.242 &itotaL TM TN_ TV TM 7 _;_ Winnerinrg Studies 0.98 0.03 1.01 Nit hiL NiL TrHA ret raduc tion Manapment 0.97 0.11 1.08 1.164 0.200 1.364 Services 0.53 0.08 0.61 1.106 0.300 1.406 Equipment 1.70 0.05 1.75 1.073 0.073 1.146 S&btotal _M 0W T __ TM T 6 Project Totat (as appraised) 6.69 0.57 7.26 6.065 1.083 7.148 k _u~nt AMditiEmL CS1UIts ALternate Fuet Study 0.130 - 0.1z0 0.139 - 0.139 NickeL Review Report & Extra Copies 0.090 - 0.090 0.145 - 0.145 Peat and Phosphate Studies 0.105 - 0.105 0.108 - 0o.8 NickeL Training/Travel 0.013 - O.13 0.007 - 0.007 Decomission Dredge 0.030 - 0.030 0.040 - 0.040 Exploration Equipnent 0.180 - 0.180 0.185 - 0.185 Unattocated 0.025 _ 0.025 - - - Sr.totat 537 0.573 0.624 iJ 0.624 ad TataL Costs 6.689 1.083 7.772 a/ Originat "LhatLocated" distributed back to individuat activities. R49.BurundiTab1  -8- Ttble II i P~ FInq __tLty M vrm n a 1- atLdi U . S ln 0.699 _ _ 0.699 0.103 0.802 t~l - smzvii 1.789 _ _ 1.789 0.399 2.188 Equipment 0.234 _ _ 0.234 0.008 0.242 Subtoutl Explotou 2 E _ 2.023 0.407 2.430 _ q SbMh - -_- - - - Trial .wa ftv&t _ g ~I - 0.028 -