05 Market Feasibility Study Sample

Technological Institute of the Philippines
MARKET
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
36
MARKET DESCRIPTION
The Philippines has a growing demand for ammonium nitrate as reflected by the
2015 Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics database amounting to 62,486 tons.
Two different grades of prilled ammonium nitrates are available, the Low-Density
prilled Ammonium Nitrate, and High-Density prilled Ammonium Nitrate. The
concentration of the Ammonium Nitrate solution before undergoing the prilling process
determines which type of product will be produced.
AMNIPRILL Corporation will produce the Low-Density prilled Ammonium

Nitrate because of its growing demand in the food and agriculture industry, industrial
and construction setting, and in the gas industry for medical applications.
The AMNIPRILL Corporation sustains the needs of the Philippines for the Low-
Density prilled ammonium nitrate that will satisfy the specifications needed by the food
and agriculture, construction, and gas industries. This specification includes high
nitrogen content which is about 34-35%.
Because of the latest technological advancements, online stores are now

available. Here, the product specifications, prices, amount available per pack and
production capacity of a supplier can be posted. This appears to be the latest trend of
advertising chemical products. Through this, the prospective clients can compare the
prices and supplier production capacity by just visiting the official website of the
company. Contact details are posted here as well, so that the clients can reach the
manufacturer for questions and clarifications.
37
Statistical Projections
Selection for the right method of projection should be taken carefully. The
following methods are frequently used in feasibility studies:
1. Arithmetic Straight Line Method
2. Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method
3. Statistical Straight Line Method
4. Statistical Parabolic Method
Every method yields different figures and trends using similar historical data.
Determination of the most suitable method for the data is essential. Identifying the right
method for projections can either be done graphically or mathematically.
The first technique is done by plotting the values given in the data gathered
along the coordinates. Approximate trend can be established from the shape of the line
found in the graph. The latter includes mathematical calculations making it more
complex.
38
Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate

The data presented below is the historical demand of Ammonium Nitrate, in
tons from 2005 to 2015.
Table 2.1. Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate
*(Retrieved: Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics Database:
Philippines)
Net Weight
Year
(tons)
2005 44,541
2006 46,366
2007 49,312
2008 52,708
2009 56,034
2010 59,924
2011 58,179
2012 59,254
2013 60,332
2014 61,409
2015 62,487
Ammonium Nitrate is used mainly in food and agriculture industry as a fertilizer.

Moreover, this is usually used as blasting agent in mining and construction industries,
and as a raw material in the manufacturing of laughing gas for medical applications.
The above data shows the demand for Ammonium Nitrate in the Philippines for the past
ten years. Ammonium Nitrate is also used to produce other substances and is available
in other forms or in combination with other compounds. Thus, a derived demand can
be generated. This includes the demand for Ammonium Nitrate used in the production
of Nitrous Oxide, Ammonium Nitrate in double salts and mixtures of calcium nitrate
39
and ammonium nitrate, and Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate from
Calcium Carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilizing substances.
Derived Demand
Ammonium Nitrate is commonly used in different industries such as food and
agriculture, construction and mining. Furthermore, ammonium nitrate is utilized as a
raw material to produce other goods or products and is present in combination with
other compounds. Among the most common are the following (as retrieved from Food
and Agriculture Organization Statistics Database):
 Ammonium Nitrate used in the production of Nitrous Oxide
 Ammonium Nitrate in double salts and mixtures of Calcium Nitrate and
Ammonium Nitrate
 Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate from Calcium Carbonate
or other inorganic non-fertilizing substances
Ammonium Nitrate used in the production of Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Nitrous Oxide or laughing gas is a chemical compound commonly used in

medicinal, dental, and anesthetic procedures because of its pain reducing effects. The
manufacturing process for N2O is quite simple. The raw ingredient, ammonium nitrate,
is supplied as a clear liquid (liquid ammonium nitrate, LAN) or as solid, pellet-sized
particles (solid ammonium nitrate, SAN) an d is then heated to decompose it into nitrous
oxide and water vapor:
NH4NO3 (s) → 2 H2O (g) + N2O (g)
The table below shows the historical demand of Ammonium Nitrate used in the
production of Nitrous Oxide from the year 2005 to 2015 in the Philippines.
40
Table 2.2. Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate used in the Production of Nitrous
Oxide (N2O)
Philippines)
Net Weight
Year
(tons)
2005 20,129
2006 22,04
2007 23,967
2008 23,668
2009 29,52
2010 31,497
2011 31,627
2012 32,863
2013 33,821
2014 35,948
2015 36,318
Ammonium Nitrate in Double Salts and Mixtures of Calcium Nitrate and

Ammonium Nitrate
Double salts & mixtures of calcium nitrate & ammonium nitrate is the 2876th
most traded product and the 3602nd most complex product according to the (Product
Complexity Index, 2015). Even though present in small amounts, ammonium nitrate is
a significant raw material in the production of the compound. The consumption of
ammonium nitrate for the purpose of making the compound totaled to 874.63 metric
tons in the year 2015.
41
The table below shows the historical demand of Ammonium Nitrate in Double
Salts and Mixtures of Calcium Nitrate and Ammonium Nitrate.
Table 2.3. Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate in Double salts and mixtures of
calcium nitrate and ammonium nitrate
Philippines)
Net Weight
Year
(tons)
2005 663
2006 690
2007 696
2008 712
2009 730
2010 780
2011 789
2012 839
2013 845
2014 856
2015 874
Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate from Calcium Carbonate

or other inorganic non-fertilizing substances
Ammonium Nitrate from Calcium Carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilizing
substances is common filler in the form of ground limestone, dolomite or by-product
calcium carbonate. This compound is known as “Calcium Ammonium Nitrate” (CAN)
and can be prilled or granulated.
42
The table below shows the historical demand of Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures
of Ammonium Nitrate from Calcium Carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilizing
substances
Table 2.4. Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate
from Calcium Carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilizing substances
Philippines)
Net Weight
Year
(tons)
2005 9692
2006 10332
2007 10877
2008 11002
2009 11497
2010 11979
2011 12592
2012 13672
2013 13901
2014 14003
2015 14227
Total Demand of Ammonium Nitrate

The data below is the cumulative demand of ammonium nitrate. This includes
the historical data of raw ammonium nitrate, demand for Ammonium Nitrate used in
the production of Nitrous Oxide, Ammonium Nitrate in double salts and mixtures of
calcium nitrate and ammonium nitrate, and Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of
Ammonium Nitrate from Calcium Carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilizing
substances from the year 2005 to 2015.
43
Table 2.5. Total Demand of Ammonium Nitrate

Philippines)
Net Weight
Year
(tons)
2005 74,382
2006 78,764
2007 84,180
2008 87,402
2009 97,083
2010 103,431
2011 102,429
2012 105,823
2013 108,088
2014 111,397
2015 113,907
HISTORICAL DEMAND OF AMMONIUM NITRATE

120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00
60,000.00 HISTORICAL DEMAND OF

AMMONIUM NITRATE
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 2.1. Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate demand
44
The demand for ammonium nitrate is at its peak in the year 2015. Starting from
the year 2005, the graph shows how the demand for it grows rapidly. The main reason
is the booming of the mining and construction industry. These two industries are the
main consumers of the product. The upturn ended up in the year 2011. The demand
started to increase again as the industries consuming the product are continuously
recovering.
Methods of Projection
Arithmetic Straight Line Method (ASLM)
Arithmetic straight line method assumes that the annual increase in the future
will remain constant.
Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
Where:
𝑌𝑛 − 𝑌𝑐
𝑎=
𝑁−1
Yc = initial value (1st year), Yn = final value (last year), Yi = value for the year past
N = number of years
Table 2.6. ASLM Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Demand
Year Net Weight (tons) Yc (Y-Yc)2
2005 74,382.70 0 0
2006 78,764.05 78,774.34 106.06
2007 84,180.54 83,155.69 1,050,316.77
2008 87,402.37 88,572.19 1,368,467.24
2009 97,083.19 91,794.02 27,975,351.48
2010 103,431.84 101,474.83 3,829,867.88
2011 102,429.93 107,823.48 29,090,431.94
2012 105,823.57 106,821.57 996,004.35
2013 108,088.72 110,215.22 4,522,020.69
2014 111,397.54 112,480.36 1,172,509.58
2015 113,907.51 115,789.18 3,540,701.02
Σ 73,545,777
45
99680.63463 − 64690.33947
𝑎=
10 − 1
𝒂 = 3887.810573
𝑎 3887.810573
𝑋= = = 388.7810573
𝑁 10
Average Annual Increase

𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
𝑌𝑐 = 3887.810573 + 64690.33947
𝒀𝒄 =68,578.15
(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 = (68431.4251 − 68,578.15)2
(𝒀 − 𝒀𝒄)𝟐 = 𝟐𝟏𝟓𝟐𝟖. 𝟐𝟏
Evaluation for Standard Deviation

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√72817527.88
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =853.332
46
Projected Values
Table 2.7. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate demand using ASLM
Year A Yc (A+Yi+1)
2016 4391.645287 118,299.15
2017 4391.645287 122,690.80
2018 4391.645287 127,082.44
2019 4391.645287 131,474.09
2020 4391.645287 135,865.73
2021 4391.645287 140,257.38
2022 4391.645287 144,649.02
2023 4391.645287 149,040.67
2024 4391.645287 153,432.31
2025 4391.645287 157,823.96
2026 4391.645287 162,215.60
Figure 2.2. Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate demand

using ASLM
47
Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method (AGCM)
Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method uses the assumption that the rate of
increase in the projected values is constant even though the amount of change keeps on
increasing.
Formula:
𝑌𝑖 + 1
𝑌𝑐 =
𝑋
Where:
Yi + 1 = value for the year ahead
X = average rate of increases
Table 2.8. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Net Weight Annual
Year % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
(tons) Increase
2005 74,382.70 0 0 70666.68 13808770.81
2006 78,764.05 4,381.35 5.8902765 74122.23 21546457.29
2007 84,180.54 5,416.49 6.8768623 77746.75 41393675.49
2008 87,402.37 3,221.83 3.8272863 81548.5 34267751.27
2009 97,083.19 9,680.82 11.076151 85536.16 133333814.4
2010 103,431.84 6,348.65 6.5393918 89718.81 188047039.7
2011 102,429.93 -1,001.91 -0.968666 94105.99 69287890.21
2012 105,823.57 3,393.65 3.3131382 98707.7 50635604.25
2013 108,088.72 2,265.14 2.140488 103534.4 20741473.53
2014 111,397.54 3,308.82 3.0612081 108597.2 7841948.189
2015 113,907.51 2,509.97 2.2531649 0 0
average % 44.009301 ∑ 580904425.1
48
∑ Average % 44.776421/100
𝑟= =
𝑁−1 10 − 1
𝒓 = 0.049751579
𝑌𝑖 + 1 (64392.01)
𝑌𝑐 = =
(1 + 𝑟) 1.049751579
𝒀𝒄 = 𝟔𝟏𝟑𝟒𝟎. 𝟐𝟑
√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √504379814.9
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 = 𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟓. 𝟖𝟒𝟎𝟏
Projected Values
Table 2.9. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate Demand using AGCM
Year Yi-1 Yc
2016 113,907.51 119477.4947
2017 119477.4947 125319.8513
2018 125319.8513 131447.8947
2019 131447.8947 137875.5945
2020 137875.5945 144617.604
2021 144617.604 151689.2924
2022 151689.2924 159106.7809
2023 159106.7809 166886.9789
2024 166886.9789 175047.6224
2025 175047.6224 183607.3151
2026 183607.3151 192585.5702
49
250,000.00
Ammonium Nitrate Projected Demand
200,000.00 (AGCM)
150,000.00
y = 7290.9x + 109678
R² = 0.9956
100,000.00
50,000.00
-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

using AGCM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value
Statistical Straight Line Method (SSLM)
SSLM uses the assumption that the change in the figure is constant while the
change in a% for that data of the year is decreasing.
Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥
Where:
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
50
Table 2.10. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Year Net Weight (tons) X X2 XY
2005 74,382.70 1 1 74382.7
2006 78,764.05 2 4 157528.1
2007 84,180.54 3 9 252541.6
2008 87,402.37 4 16 349609.5
2009 97,083.19 5 25 485415.9
2010 103,431.84 6 36 620591
2011 102,429.93 7 49 717009.5
2012 105,823.57 8 64 846588.6
2013 108,088.72 9 81 972798.4
2014 111,397.54 10 100 1113975
2015 113,907.51 11 121 1252983
∑ 1,066,891.94 66 506 6843423
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
10(5987893) − (66x 933,113.81)

𝑏=
10(506) − (66)2
𝒃 =-2424.124316
933,113.81 66
𝑎= − (−2424.124316) ( )
10 10
𝒂 =109310.6013
51
Table 2.11. Continuation for SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Demand
A B Yc Y-Yc (Y-Yc)2
2,309,912,208.81460
125257.6 -2813.4 122444.2 -48,061.55 0
1,670,095,146.73186
125257.6 -2813.4 119630.8 -40,866.80 0
1,065,167,296.76266
125257.6 -2813.4 116817.4 -32,636.90 0
125257.6 -2813.4 114004 -26,601.67 707,648,780.918033
125257.6 -2813.4 111190.6 -14,107.45 199,020,105.687433
125257.6 -2813.4 108377.2 -4,945.40 24,456,947.885618
125257.6 -2813.4 105563.8 -3,133.90 9,821,355.364194
125257.6 -2813.4 102750.4 3,073.14 9,444,206.547838
125257.6 -2813.4 99937.03 8,151.69 66,449,977.685874
125257.6 -2813.4 97123.63 14,273.91 203,744,446.347586
125257.6 -2813.4 94310.23 19,597.28 384,053,381.806126
6,649,813,854.5518
𝑌𝑐 = 109310.6 + (−2424.12)(1)
𝒀𝒄 =106886.5

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√5,087,166,387.166670
𝜎=
10
52
𝝈 = 𝟕𝟏𝟑𝟐. 𝟒𝟑𝟕
Projected Values
Table 2.12. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate demand using SSLM
Year A B X Yc
2016 125257.6465 -2813.4 12 91496.82
2017 125257.6465 -2813.4 13 88683.42
2018 125257.6465 -2813.4 14 85870.02
2019 125257.6465 -2813.4 15 83056.62
2020 125257.6465 -2813.4 16 80243.22
2021 125257.6465 -2813.4 17 77429.82
2022 125257.6465 -2813.4 18 74616.41
2023 125257.6465 -2813.4 19 71803.01
2024 125257.6465 -2813.4 20 68989.61
2025 125257.6465 -2813.4 21 66176.21
2026 125257.6465 -2813.4 22 63362.81

100,000.00
(SSLM)
90,000.00
80,000.00
70,000.00
60,000.00 y = -2813.4x + 94310
50,000.00 R² = 1
40,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
10,000.00
-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

using SSLM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value
53
Statistical Parabolic Projection Method (SPPM)

Statistical parabolic projection method uses the assumption that the change in
the predicted values and the percentage change may be decreasing or increasing.
Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐𝑥 2
Where:
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
Table 2.13. SPPM Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Net Weight
Year X X2 X4 XY X2Y
(tons)
2005 74,382.70 -11 121 14641 -818210 9000307
2006 78,764.05 -9 81 6561 -708876 6379888
2007 84,180.54 -7 49 2401 -589264 4124846
2008 87,402.37 -5 25 625 -437012 2185059
2009 97,083.19 -3 9 81 -291250 873748.7
2010 103,431.84 -1 1 1 -103432 103431.8
2011 102,429.93 1 1 1 102429.9 102429.9
2012 105,823.57 3 9 81 317470.7 952412.2
2013 108,088.72 5 25 625 540443.6 2702218
2014 111,397.54 7 49 2401 779782.8 5458479
2015 113,907.51 9 81 6561 1025168 9226508
∑ 1,066,891.94 -11 451 33979 -182749 41109328
54
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(33979)(933,113.81) − (451)(35854376)
𝑎=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒂 =151703.4519
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
−154694
𝑏=
451
𝒃 =-343.002089
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(9)(35854376) − (451))(933113.81)
𝑐=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒄 =-958.3531242
55
Table 2.14. Continuation for SPM Analysis Ammonium Nitrate Demand

A B C Yc (Y-Yc)2
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 177405.379 1.0614E+10
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 176594.964 9570888675
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 175784.5489 8391294438
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 174974.1339 7668813776
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 174163.7189 5941408137
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 173353.3038 4889011276
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 172542.8888 4915827076
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 171732.4738 4343983001
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 170922.0587 3948029026
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 170111.6437 3447346450
172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 169301.2286 3068464492
∑ 6.6799E+10

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√5.1754E + 10
𝜎=
10
𝝈 = 𝟐𝟐𝟕𝟒𝟗. 𝟓𝟏
56
Projected Values
Table 2.15. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate demand using SPM
Yc
Year X A b C
(a+bX+cX2)
2016 13 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 15799.24
2017 14 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 45517.76
2018 15 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 77407.64
2019 16 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 111468.9
2020 17 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 147701.5
2021 18 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 186105.4
2022 19 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 226680.7
2023 20 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 269427.4
2024 21 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 314345.4
2025 22 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 361434.8
2026 23 172948.1 -405.208 -1085.68 410695.5

(SPCM)
500,000.00
400,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
y = 39490x - 39976
100,000.00 R² = 0.9941
-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
(100,000.00)
Figure 2.5 Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate demand

using SPPM showing the equation the predicted R-squared value
57
Table 2.16. Summary of Standard Deviation indicating ASLM has the lowest value
Arithmetic Straight Line Method 857.5883455
Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method 2410.195895
Statistical Straight Line Method 8154.639
Statistical Parabolic Method 25845.45
Arithmetic straight line method with the least standard deviation value of
857.5883455 among the four statistical methods will be used as the method to project
the demand of ammonium nitrate.
Choosing Projected Demand

Table 2.17. Summary of Ammonium Nitrate demand using each method
Arithmetic
Arithmetic Statistical Statistical
Geometric
Year Straight Line Straight Line Parabolic
Curve
Method Method Curve Method
Method
2005 - 70666.68 122444.2 177405.379
2006 78,774.34 74122.23 119630.8 176594.964
2007 83,155.69 77746.75 116817.4 175784.5489
2008 88,572.19 81548.5 114004 174974.1339
2009 91,794.02 85536.16 111190.6 174163.7189
2010 101,474.83 89718.81 108377.2 173353.3038
2011 107,823.48 94105.99 105563.8 172542.8888
2012 106,821.57 98707.7 102750.4 171732.4738
2013 110,215.22 103534.4 99937.03 170922.0587
2014 112,480.36 108597.2 97123.63 170111.6437
2015 115,789.18 - 94310.23 169301.2286
58
Historical Demand for Ammonium Nitrate

200000
DEMAND (TONS)
150000
ASLM
100000 AGCM
SSLM
50000
SPCM
2007
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
YEAR
Figure 2.6 Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate demand using the four
methods
Table 2.18. Summary of Projected Ammonium Nitrate Demand Using Each Method
Arithmetic Arithmetic Statistical Statistical
Year Straight Geometric Straight Parabolic
Line Curve Line Curve
2016 118,299.15 119477.5 91496.82 15799.24
2017 122,690.80 125319.9 88683.42 45517.76
2018 127,082.44 131447.9 85870.02 77407.64
2019 131,474.09 137875.6 83056.62 111468.9
2020 135,865.73 144617.6 80243.22 147701.5
2021 140,257.38 151689.3 77429.82 186105.4
2022 144,649.02 159106.8 74616.41 226680.7
2023 149,040.67 166887 71803.01 269427.4
2024 153,432.31 175047.6 68989.61 314345.4
2025 157,823.96 183607.3 66176.21 361434.8
2026 162,215.60 192585.6 63362.81 410695.5
59
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): Single Factor

Table 2.19 Analysis of Variance using Single Factor for the Four Statistical Methods
Used in the Projection of Ammonium Nitrate Demand
Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Arithmetic
Straight Line 11 1,542,831 140,257 212,152,003
Method
Arithmetic
Geometric Curve 11 1,687,662 153,423 587,326,027
Method
Statistical
Straight Line 11 851,727 77,429 87,067,499
Method
Statistical
Parabolic 11 2,166,584 196,962 17,254,869,009
Method
Source of F
SS df MS F P-value
Variation crit
Between
80,560,607,321 3 26,853,535,773 5.92 0.0019 2.84
Groups
Within
181,414,145,395 40 4,535,353,634
Groups
Total 261,974,752,716 43
Conclusion: if F > F crit, we reject the null hypothesis. This is the case, 5.92 > 2.84.
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis. The means of the four populations are not all
equal. At least one of the means is different. Thus, choosing ASLM with the lowest
standard deviation as the method of projection for ammonium nitrate demand is
significant.
60
Comparison of the Four Methods
Projected Demand for Ammonium Nitrate

100,000.00
90,000.00
80,000.00
DEMAND (TONS)
70,000.00
60,000.00 ASLM
50,000.00 AGCM
40,000.00
30,000.00 SSLM
20,000.00 SPCM
10,000.00
0.00
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
YEAR
Figure 2.7 Graphical Representation of Projected demand of Ammonium Nitrate

using the four methods
Comparison of the Four Methods
Statistical Straight Line vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

The projection obtained using the Arithmetic Straight Line Method increases
from year 2005 to 2010. An abrupt decrease was posted from 2011 to 2012. The demand
constantly rises in the next 4 years. The values acquired from the Statistical Straight
Line Method increases diminutively. The standard deviation calculated using Statistical
Straight Line is 90% lower compared to the value obtained using Arithmetic Straight
Line.
The values of projected demand from 2005 to the projected assessment for the
next ten years using the Arithmetic Straight Line increase whereas the resulted values
from Statistical Straight Line decrease.
61
Arithmetic Geometric Curve vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

The values acquired from the Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method increases
continuously for 10 years starting from 2005. The standard deviation calculated using
Arithmetic Straight Line is lower than the value attained using Arithmetic Geometric
Curve by 1552.61, which is almost 74% higher in variation.
As the projected result from both methods increases, the values from the
Arithmetic Straight Line are more acceptable than with the Arithmetic Geometric Curve
due to the low standard deviation value.
Statistical Parabolic Projection vs. Arithmetic Straight Line
The projection calculated using Statistical Parabolic Projection indicates that
there is a massive increase in demand for the next ten years. This instance has a small
possibility to arise since the values were very high and unrealistic.
Arithmetic Straight Line has the smallest standard deviation obtained. The
projection using this method is the most favourable among the other methods used.
Projected Demand
Table 2.20. Projected demand for the next ten (10) years using ASLM
Year ASLM
2016 118,299.15
2017 122,690.80
2018 127,082.44
2019 131,474.09
2020 135,865.73
2021 140,257.38
2022 144,649.02
2023 149,040.67
2024 153,432.31
2025 157,823.96
2026 162,215.60
62

(ASLM)
200,000.00
150,000.00
y = 4391.6x + 113908
100,000.00 R² = 1
50,000.00
-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.8 Graphical Representation on the Projected Ammonium Nitrate Demand

using ASLM with the equation and predicted R-squared value
Historical Supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Table 2.21. Historical supply of Ammonium Nitrate
Year Net Weight (tons)
2005 32,427.35
2006 26,530.55
2007 28,159.10
2008 33,706.45
2009 38,244.55
2010 35,311.50
2011 34,080.05
2012 35,903.60
2013 39,084.05
2014 45,021.05
2015 48,034.50
63
Historical Supply of Ammonoium Nitrate

60,000.00
Ammonium Nitrate (TONS)

50,000.00
40,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
10,000.00 Supply
0.00
2014
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
YEAR
Figure 2.9 Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate Supply

*From Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics Database: Philippines. (2005-
2015)
The supply for Ammonium Nitrate has reached the 38,000 ton level in the year
2009 as massive increase in the demand on the same year happened. Subsequently,
supply decreases to just suffice the turned down demand in the year after. The supply
begins to increase as the demand of industries consuming the product is continuously
recovering.
Arithmetic Straight Line Method

Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
Where:
𝑎=
𝑁−1
Yc = initial value (1st year)
Yn = final value (last year)
N = number of years
Yi = value for the year past
64
Table 2.22. ASLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Supply

Net Weight
Year A (-) Yc (Y-Yc)2
(tons)
2005 32,427.35 1734.127778 - -
2006 26,530.55 1734.127778 34,161.48 58231058.75
2007 28,159.10 1734.127778 28,264.68 11146.66716
2008 33,706.45 1734.127778 29,893.23 14540663.72
2009 38,244.55 1734.127778 35,440.58 7862260.223
2010 35,311.50 1734.127778 39,978.68 21782548.41
2011 34,080.05 1734.127778 37,045.63 8794651.556
2012 35,903.60 1734.127778 35,814.18 7996.333827
2013 39,084.05 1734.127778 37,637.73 2091847.97
2014 45,021.05 1734.127778 40,818.18 17664134.92
2015 48,034.50 1734.127778 46,755.18 1636665.348
∑ 132622973.9
48,034.50 − 32,427.35
𝑎=
10 − 1
𝒂 = 1734.127778
𝑎 1734.127778
𝑋= = = 𝟏𝟕𝟑. 𝟒𝟏𝟐𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟖
𝑁 10

𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
𝑌𝑐 = 1734.127778 + 26530.55
65
𝑌𝑐 = 34,161.48
(𝒀 − 𝒀𝒄)𝟐 = 𝟓𝟖𝟐𝟑𝟏𝟎𝟓𝟖. 𝟕𝟓

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√132622973.9
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =1151.620484
Projected Values
Table 2.23. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using ASLM
Year A (-) Yc (A+Yi+1)
2016 1,734.13 49,768.63

2017 1,734.13 51,502.76
2018 1,734.13 53,236.88
2019 1,734.13 54,971.01
2020 1,734.13 56,705.14
2021 1,734.13 58,439.27
2022 1,734.13 60,173.39
2023 1,734.13 61,907.52
2024 1,734.13 63,641.65
2025 1,734.13 65,375.78
2026 1,734.13 67,109.91
66
Projected Supply of Ammonm Nitrate (ASLM)

80,000.00
70,000.00
60,000.00
50,000.00
40,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.10. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using ASLM
Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method

Formula:
𝑌𝑖 + 1
𝑌𝑐 =
𝑋
Where:
67
Table 2.24. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Net Weight
Year % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
(tons)
2005 32,427.35 0 45644.32 174688421.7
2006 26,530.55 -18.18465 45877.89 374319563.8
2007 28,159.10 6.1383952 46112.65 322329970.1
2008 33,706.45 19.700026 46348.61 159824260.4
2009 38,244.55 13.463595 46585.78 69576136.46
2010 35,311.50 -7.669197 46824.16 132541428.3
2011 34,080.05 -3.487391 47063.77 168576890.3
2012 35,903.60 5.3507844 47304.59 129982685.7
2013 39,084.05 8.8583039 47546.66 71615698.18
2014 45,021.05 15.19034 47789.96 7666837.371
2015 48,034.50 6.6934245 0 0
average % 4.6053631 ∑ 1611121892
∑ Average % 4.6053631/100
𝑟= =
𝑁−1 10 − 1
𝒓 = 0.00511707
𝑌𝑖 + 1 (45877.89)
𝑌𝑐 = =
1+𝑟 (1.00511707)
𝒀𝒄 = 45,644.31967
√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
68
√1611121892
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =4013.87829
Projected Values
Table 2.25 Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate Supply using AGCM
Year Yi-1 Yc
2016 48,034.50 48280.29591
2017 48280.29591 48527.34957
2018 48527.34957 48775.66742
2019 48775.66742 49025.25593
2020 49025.25593 49276.1216
2021 49276.1216 49528.27097
2022 49528.27097 49781.71061
2023 49781.71061 50036.44711
2024 50036.44711 50292.48712
2025 50292.48712 50549.8373
2026 50549.8373 50808.50437
69
Projected Supply of Ammonm Nitrate (AGCM)

51000
50500
50000
49500
49000 Projected Supply of

Ammonm Nitrate
48500 (AGCM)
48000
47500
47000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.11. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using AGCM
Statistical Straight Line Method

Formula:
Where:
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
70
Table 2.26. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Year Net Weight (tons) X X2 XY (-)
2005 32,427.35 1 1 32427.35
2006 26,530.55 2 4 53061.1
2007 28,159.10 3 9 84477.3
2008 33,706.45 4 16 134825.8
2009 38,244.55 5 25 191222.8
2010 35,311.50 6 36 211869
2011 34,080.05 7 49 238560.4
2012 35,903.60 8 64 287228.8
2013 39,084.05 9 81 351756.5
2014 45,021.05 10 100 450210.5
2015 48,034.50 11 121 528379.5
∑ 396,502.75 66 506 2564019
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
10(2564019) − (66 x 396,502.75)

𝑏=
10 (506) − (66)2
𝒃 =-751.4098011
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
396,502.75 66
𝑎= − (−751.4098011)( )
10 10
𝒂 =44609.57969
71
Table 2.27 Continuation for SSLM analysis

A B (-) Yc Y-Yc (Y-Yc)2
44609.58 -751.41 43858.17 -11,430.82 130,663,643.274485
44609.58 -751.41 43106.76 -16,576.21 274,770,740.789588
44609.58 -751.41 42355.35 -14,196.25 201,533,522.128550
44609.58 -751.41 41603.94 -7,897.49 62,370,355.928357
44609.58 -751.41 40852.53 -2,607.98 6,801,563.236737
44609.58 -751.41 40101.12 -4,789.62 22,940,468.180663
44609.58 -751.41 39349.71 -5,269.66 27,769,327.893276
44609.58 -751.41 38598.3 -2,694.70 7,261,414.979860
44609.58 -751.41 37846.89 1,237.16 1,530,561.210357
44609.58 -751.41 37095.48 7,925.57 62,814,633.256230
44609.58 -751.41 36344.07 11,690.43 136,666,109.745790
∑ 935,122,340.623893
𝑌𝑐 = 44609.58 + (−751.41)(1)
𝒀𝒄 =43858.17
√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√935,122,340.623893
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =3057.977
72
Projected Values
Table 2.28 Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using SSLM
Year X A B (-) Yc (a+bX)
2016 12 44609.57969 -751.41 35592.66

2017 13 44609.57969 -751.41 34841.25
2018 14 44609.57969 -751.41 34089.84
2019 15 44609.57969 -751.41 33338.43
2020 16 44609.57969 -751.41 32587.02
2021 17 44609.57969 -751.41 31835.61
2022 18 44609.57969 -751.41 31084.2
2023 19 44609.57969 -751.41 30332.79
2024 20 44609.57969 -751.41 29581.38
2025 21 44609.57969 -751.41 28829.97
2026 22 44609.57969 -751.41 28078.56
Projected Supply of Ammonm Nitrate (SSLM)

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.11. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using SSLM
73
Statistical Parabolic Method

Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐𝑥 2
Where:
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
Table 2.29 SPCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Year Net Weight X X2 X4 XY X2Y
(tons)
2005 32,427.35 -11 121 14641 -356701 3923709
2006 26,530.55 -9 81 6561 -238775 2148975
2007 28,159.10 -7 49 2401 -197114 1379796
2008 33,706.45 -5 25 625 -168532 842661.3
2009 38,244.55 -3 9 81 -114734 344201
2010 35,311.50 -1 1 1 -35311.5 35311.5
2011 34,080.05 1 1 1 34080.05 34080.05
2012 35,903.60 3 9 81 107710.8 323132.4
2013 39,084.05 5 25 625 195420.3 977101.3
2014 45,021.05 7 49 2401 315147.4 2206031
2015 48,034.50 9 81 6561 432310.5 3890795
∑ 396,502.75 451 33979 -26497.9 16105793
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
74
(33979)(396,502.75) − (451)(16105793)
𝑎=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒂 =60629.37439
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
−26497.9
𝑏=
451
𝒃 = -58.7537694
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(9)(16105793) − (451))(396,502.75)
𝑐=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒄 = -330.7352983
75
Table 2.30 Continuation for SPCM analysis

A B (-) C Yc (Y-Yc)2
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 61275.67 8.32E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 61158.16 1.2E+09
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 61040.65 1.08E+09
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60923.14 7.41E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60805.64 5.09E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60688.13 6.44E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60570.62 7.02E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60453.11 6.03E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60335.61 4.52E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60218.1 2.31E+08
60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 60100.59 1.46E+08
∑ 7.14E+09

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√7.14E + 09
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =8449.151
76
Projected Values
Table 2.31 Projected values for the supply of Ammonium Nitrate using SPCM
Year X a b C Yc (a+bX+cX2)
2005 13 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 3971.31
2006 14 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 5017.297
2007 15 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 14667.37
2008 16 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 24978.92
2009 17 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 35951.94
2010 18 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 47586.43
2011 19 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 59882.39
2012 20 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 72839.82
2013 21 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 86458.72
2014 22 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 100739.1
2015 23 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 115680.9
Projected Supply of Ammonm Nitrate

(SPCM)
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.12. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using SPCM
77
Table 2.32 Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using each method
Statistical Parabolic Curve Method 8449.151
Arithmetic straight line method with the least standard deviation value of 1151.620484
among the four statistical methods will be used as the method to project the supply of
ammonium nitrate.
Choosing Projected Supply

Table 2.33 Summary of Ammonium Nitrate supply using each method
Arithmetic Arithmetic
Statistical Statistical
Straight Geometric
Year Straight Line Parabolic
Line Curve
Method Curve Method
Method Method
2005 - 45644.32 43858.17 61275.67
2006 34,161.48 45877.89 43106.76 61158.16
2007 28,264.68 46112.65 42355.35 61040.65
2008 29,893.23 46348.61 41603.94 60923.14
2009 35,440.58 46585.78 40852.53 60805.64
2010 39,978.68 46824.16 40101.12 60688.13
2011 37,045.63 47063.77 39349.71 60570.62
2012 35,814.18 47304.59 38598.3 60453.11
2013 37,637.73 47546.66 37846.89 60335.61
2014 40,818.18 47789.96 37095.48 60218.1
2015 46,755.18 - 36344.07 60100.59
78
Figure 2.13. Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate supply using the four
methods
79
Table 2.34 Summary of projected supply of Ammonium Nitrate using each method
Year Arithmetic Arithmetic Statistical Statistical
Straight Geometric Straight Parabolic
2016 49,768.63 48280.29591 35592.66 3971.31
2017 51,502.76 48527.34957 34841.25 5017.297
2018 53,236.88 48775.66742 34089.84 14667.37
2019 54,971.01 49025.25593 33338.43 24978.92
2020 56,705.14 49276.1216 32587.02 35951.94
2021 58,439.27 49528.27097 31835.61 47586.43
2022 60,173.39 49781.71061 31084.2 59882.39
2023 61,907.52 50036.44711 30332.79 72839.82
2024 63,641.65 50292.48712 29581.38 86458.72
2025 65,375.78 50549.8373 28829.97 100739.1
2026 67,109.91 50808.50437 28078.56 115680.9
Figure 2.14. Graphical Representation of projected supply of Ammonium Nitrate
80
Analysis Of Variance (Anova): Single Factor

Table 2.35 Analysis of Variance of the Four Methods used in the projection of
Ammonium Nitrate Supply
SUMMARY
33,079,192.1
ASLM 11 642,831.94 58,439.26
9
AGCM 11 544,881.94 49,534.72 703,093.93
SSLM 11 350,191.71 31,835.61 6,210,786.86
SPCM 11 567,774.19 51,615.83 150,279,8035
ANOVA
Source of
SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Between
4.241.742.100 3 141,391,4033 3.66 0.0200 2.83
Groups
Within Groups 154.279.11.07 40 385,697,776.9
Total 19.669.653.17 43
equal. At least one of the means is different. Thus, choosing ASLM as the method to
project the supply of ammonium nitrate is significant.
81
Arithmetic Geometric Curve vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

The projection of the Arithmetic Geometric Curve shows a very minimal
increase from 2005 to 2015. The standard deviation calculated using Arithmetic Straight
Line is lesser than the value acquired using Arithmetic Geometric Curve.
Statistical Straight Line vs. Arithmetic Straight Line
The values calculated from the Arithmetic Straight Line Method increases
continuously for 10 years starting from 2005. The projected supply in Statistical Straight
Line has a constant decreasing trend for ammonium nitrate which will yield to scarcity.
The standard deviation using Statistical Straight Line is higher than Arithmetic Straight
Line.
Statistical Parabolic Curve vs. Arithmetic Straight Line
The projection using Statistical Parabolic Curve Method has a very high
increasing rate that surpasses the demand which may lead to surplus.
The values show a favourable result of projection for the Arithmetic Straight
Line since the method has the lowest deviation obtained.
Table 2.36 Projected Supply for the next ten (10) years using Arithmetic Straight Line
Method
Year ASLM
2016 49,768.63
2017 51,502.76
2018 53,236.88
2019 54,971.01
2020 56,705.14
2021 58,439.27
2022 60,173.39
2023 61,907.52
2024 63,641.65
2025 65,375.78
2026 67,109.91
82
Graphical Representation on the Projected

Ammonium Nitrate Demand (ASLM)
180,000.00
160,000.00
140,000.00
DEMAND (TONS)
120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00 Net Weight (ton)
60,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
YEAR
Figure 2.15. Graphical representation on the projected supply of Ammonium Nitrate
Table 2.37. Difference of historical demand and supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Year Demand, tons Supply, tons
2005 74,382.70 32,427.35
2006 78,764.05 26,530.55
2007 84,180.54 28,159.10
2008 87,402.37 33,706.45
2009 97,083.19 38,244.55
2010 103,431.84 35,311.50
2011 102,429.93 34,080.05
2012 105,823.57 35,903.60
2013 108,088.72 39,084.05
2014 111,397.54 45,021.05
2015 113,907.51 48,034.50
83
Figure 2.16 Graphical representations of the differences of Historical Demand and

Supply for Ammonium Nitrate
Historical Demand vs Supply of Ammonium Nitrate

120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00
60,000.00 Demand
Supply
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Table 2.38. Difference of projected demand and supply of Ammonium Nitrate

2016 64,480.79 49,768.63
2017 66,474.79 51,502.76
2018 68,468.78 53,236.88
2019 70,462.78 54,971.01
2020 72,456.77 56,705.14
2021 74,450.77 58,439.27
2022 76,444.76 60,173.39
2023 78,438.76 61,907.52
2024 80,432.75 63,641.65
2025 82,426.74 65,375.78
2026 84,420.74 67,109.91
84
Projected Demand Vs. Supply of Ammonium

160,000.00 Nitrate
140,000.00
Ammonium Nitrate (Tons)
120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00
60,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Demand Supply
Year
Figure 2.17. Graphical Representation of the Difference of the Projected Demand and
Supply for Ammonium Nitrate
Figure 2.18. Graphical representation of the Historical Demand and Supply for
Ammonium Nitrate
85
Table 2.39 shows the amount of unsatisfied demand for Ammonium Nitrate.
Thus, the need to Ammonium Nitrate manufacturing plant is satisfied.
Market Share
Table 2.39 Basis for market share projection
Unsatisfied % Unsatisfied
demand, tons Demand
2016 118,299.15 49,768.63 68,530.52 57.93
2017 122,690.80 51,502.76 71,188.04 58.02
2018 127,082.44 53,236.88 73,845.56 58.11
2019 131,474.09 54,971.01 76,503.08 58.19
2020 135,865.73 56,705.14 79,160.59 58.26
2021 140,257.38 58,439.27 81,818.11 58.33
2022 144,649.02 60,173.39 84,475.63 58.40
2023 149,040.67 61,907.52 87,133.15 58.46
2024 153,432.31 63,641.65 89,790.66 58.52
2025 157,823.96 65,375.78 92,448.18 58.58
2026 162,215.60 67,109.91 95,105.69 58.63
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 − 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦
𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡 = 𝑥 100%
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
Target Market Share

Assumption: 20 % for the year 2019
*Plant operation starts at September 2019 which will only yield to 5% market share
Plant capacity = Projected demand in the year 2021
Plant capacity = 19,125.77 tons
86
In the Philippines, there is only one manufacturing firm currently producing

ammonium nitrate and the others are traders who imports ammonium nitrate from other
countries. Hence, AMNIPRILL Corporation sets a market share of 20% from the start
of production and continuously increasing until it reaches the maximum plant capacity
of 19,125.77 or 23.38% market share by the year 2021.
Rated Plant Capacity

Table 2.40. Production plan schedule for Ammonium Nitrate
Number
Total % Annual Daily
of Sales
Year Demand, Market Production, %Utilization Production,
(50 kg
Tons Share Tons Tons
Sack)
2016 118,299 - - - - -
2017 122,691 - - - - -
2018 127,082 - - - - -
2019 131,474 3 3,825 80 11 76,503
2020 135,866 13 17,213 90 48 344,264
2021 140,257 14 19,126 100 53 382,515
2022 144,649 13 19,126 100 53 382,515
2023 149,041 13 19,126 100 53 382,515
2024 153,432 12 19,126 100 53 382,515
2025 157,824 12 19,126 100 53 382,515
2026 162,216 12 19,126 100 53 382,515
*The 3 % market share is based on the target annual production of 19,126 tons for 1
whole year of operation. Since AMNIPRILL Corporation will start its operation on
September 2019, only 3% of the market share will be covered.
The production will run 300 days in a year having three days of shutdown for cleaning
and maintenance of equipment. AMNIPRILL Corporation Philippines decided to have
only three days to minimize profit loss. At the end of 2026, expansion for increasing
the plant capacity will be constructed. The expansion would be dependent on the
87
projected demand from that year onwards. After the first expansion, the next would be
made after five years in order to lessen the cost.
Raw Material (Ammonia Gas)
Table 2.41 Historical Demand of Ammonia (From Food and Agriculture Organization
Statistics Database: Philippines. (2005-2015))
2005 33,834
2006 39,355
2007 39,974
2008 42,325
2009 44,438
2010 45,781
2011 45,853
2012 55,973
2013 59,763
2014 61,598
2015 68,500
Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
Where:
𝑎=
𝑁−1
N = number of years
88
Table 2.42 ASLM Analysis for Ammonia Demand

Net Weight
Year Yc (Y-Yc)2
(tons)
2005 33,834 0 0
2006 39,355 37,685.78 2786302.83
2007 39,974 43,206.78 10450852.16
2008 42,325 43,825.78 2252333.94
2009 44,438 46,176.78 3023348.16
2010 45,781 48,289.78 6293965.94
2011 45,853 49,632.78 14286720.05
2012 55,973 49,704.78 39290609.83
2013 59,763 59,824.78 3816.49
2014 61,598 63,614.78 4067392.60
2015 68,500 65,449.78 9303855.60
Σ 91759197.60
68,500 − 33,834
𝑎=
10 − 1
𝒂 = 3851.777778
𝑎 3851.777778
𝑋= = = 385.1777778
𝑁 10

𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
𝑌𝑐 = 3851.777778 +33,834 - 1
𝑌𝑐 = 37,685
89

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√91759197.60
𝜎=
10
𝝈 = 𝟗𝟓𝟕. 𝟗𝟏
Projected Values
Table 2.43 Projected values for Ammonia using ASLM
Year A Yc (A+Yi+1)
2016 3851.777778 72,351.78

2017 3851.777778 76,203.56
2018 3851.777778 80,055.33
2019 3851.777778 83,907.11
2020 3851.777778 87,758.89
2021 3851.777778 91,610.67
2022 3851.777778 95,462.44
2023 3851.777778 99,314.22
2024 3851.777778 103,166.00
2025 3851.777778 107,017.78
2026 3851.777778 110,869.56
90

Formula:
𝑌𝑖 + 1
𝑌𝑐 =
𝑋
Where:
Table 2.44. AGCM analysis for Ammonia

Year Net Weight (tons) Yi + 1 % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
2005 33,834 0 0 63040.58 853024211.6
2006 39,355 5,521.00 16.31 63566.34 586189125.1
2007 39,974 619.00 1.57 64096.49 581894644.7
2008 42,325 2,351.00 5.88 64631.06 497560473.9
2009 44,438 2,113.00 4.99 65170.09 429819684
2010 45,781 1,343.00 3.02 65713.62 397309265.7
2011 45,853 72.00 0.15 66261.68 416514065.4
2012 55,973 10,120.00 22.07 66814.31 117533898
2013 59,763 3,790.00 6.77 67371.54 57889928.33
2014 61,598 1,835.00 3.07 67933.43 40137653.87
2015 68,500 6,902.00 11.20 0 0
average % 7.50 ∑ 3977872951
∑ Average %
𝑟=
𝑁−1
7.5060893
𝑟= 100
10 − 1
𝒓 = 0.008340099
91

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√3977872951
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =6307.038093
Projected Values
Table 2.45. Projected values for Ammonia using AGCM
Year Yi-1 Yc
2016 68,500.00 69071.2968

2017 69071.2968 69647.35826
2018 69647.35826 70228.22414
2019 70228.22414 70813.93449
2020 70813.93449 71404.52973
2021 71404.52973 72000.05059
2022 72000.05059 72600.53816
2023 72600.53816 73206.03385
2024 73206.03385 73816.57943
2025 73816.57943 74432.21703
2026 74432.21703 75052.9891
92

Formula:
Where:
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
Table 2.46 SSLM Analysis for Ammonia

Year Net Weight X X2 XY
(tons)
2005 33,834 1 1 33834
2006 39,355 2 4 78710
2007 39,974 3 9 119922
2008 42,325 4 16 169300
2009 44,438 5 25 222190
2010 45,781 6 36 274686
2011 45,853 7 49 320971
2012 55,973 8 64 447784
2013 59,763 9 81 537867
2014 61,598 10 100 615980
2015 68,500 11 121 753500
∑ 537,394.00 66 506 3574744
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
93
10(3574744) − (66 x537,394.00)

𝑏=
10(506) − 662
𝒃 =396.9261364
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
537,394.00 66
𝑎= − (396.9261364)( )
10 10
𝒂 =51119.6875
Table 2.47 Continuation for SSLM Analysis

A b Yc Y-Yc (Y-Yc)2
51119.69 396.9261 51516.61 -17,682.61 312,674,825.012913
51119.69 396.9261 51913.54 -12,558.54 157,716,921.223173
51119.69 396.9261 52310.47 -12,336.47 152,188,391.126162
51119.69 396.9261 52707.39 -10,382.39 107,794,064.585518
51119.69 396.9261 53104.32 -8,666.32 75,105,070.828512
51119.69 396.9261 53501.24 -7,720.24 59,602,172.332419
51119.69 396.9261 53898.17 -8,045.17 64,724,767.642691
51119.69 396.9261 54295.1 1,677.90 2,815,359.850239
51119.69 396.9261 54692.02 5,070.98 25,714,810.500517
51119.69 396.9261 55088.95 6,509.05 42,367,746.695797
51119.69 396.9261 55485.88 13,014.13 169,367,449.515625
∑ 1,170,071,579.313570
Yc = a + bx
94
𝑌𝑐 = 51119.6875 + (396.9261)(1)
𝒀𝒄 = 51515.61

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√1,170,071,579.313570
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =3420.631
Projected Values
Table 2.48 Projected values for Ammonia using SSLM
Year X a B Yc (a+bX)
2016 12 51119.6875 396.9261 55882.8
2017 13 51119.6875 396.9261 56279.73
2018 14 51119.6875 396.9261 56676.65
2019 15 51119.6875 396.9261 57073.58
2020 16 51119.6875 396.9261 57470.51
2021 17 51119.6875 396.9261 57867.43
2022 18 51119.6875 396.9261 58264.36
2023 19 51119.6875 396.9261 58661.28
2024 20 51119.6875 396.9261 59058.21
2025 21 51119.6875 396.9261 59455.14
2026 22 51119.6875 396.9261 59852.06
95

Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐𝑥 2
Where:
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
Table 2.49. SPM Analysis for Ammonia

Net Weight
Year X X2 X4 XY X2Y
(tons)
2005 33,834 -11 121 14641 -372174 4093914
2006 39,355 -9 81 6561 -354195 3187755
2007 39,974 -7 49 2401 -279818 1958726
2008 42,325 -5 25 625 -211625 1058125
2009 44,438 -3 9 81 -133314 399942
2010 45,781 -1 1 1 -45781 45781
2011 45,853 1 1 1 45853 45853
2012 55,973 3 9 81 167919 503757
2013 59,763 5 25 625 298815 1494075
2014 61,598 7 49 2401 431186 3018302
2015 68,500 9 81 6561 616500 5548500
∑ 537,394.00 451 33979 163366 21354730
96
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(33979)(537,394.00) − (451)(21354730)
𝑎=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒂 =84260.59463
∑ 𝑋𝑌 163366
𝑏= =
∑ 𝑋2 451
𝒃 =362.2305987
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(9)(21354730) − (451)(537,394.00)
𝑐=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒄 =-489.914305
97
Table 2.50. Continuation for SPM Analysis

A B C x Yc (Y-Yc)2
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -11 20996.43 164803278
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -9 41317.46 3851251.28
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -7 57719.18 314891395
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -5 70201.58 777103936
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -3 78764.67 1178320554
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -1 83408.45 1415824973
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 1 84132.91 1465351580
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 3 80938.06 623254105
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 5 73823.89 197708627
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 7 62790.41 1421836.51
84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 9 47837.61 426934307
∑ 6569465842

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√6569465842
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =8105.224
98
Projected Values
Table 2.51 Projected values for Ammonia using SPM
Year X a b c Yc (a+bX+cX2)
2016 13 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 6174.075
2017 14 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -6691.38
2018 15 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -20536.7
2019 16 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -35361.8
2020 17 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -51166.7
2021 18 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -67951.5
2022 19 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -85716.1
2023 20 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -104461
2024 21 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -124185
2025 22 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -144889
2026 23 84260.59 362.2306 -489.914 -166573
Table 2.52. Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using each
method
Arithmetic straight line method with the least standard deviation value of 957.9102129
among the four statistical methods will be used as the method to project the demand of
ammonia.
99
Choosing Projected Demand (FOR AMMONIA)

Table 2.53. Summary of Ammonia demand using each method
Straight Line Geometric Straight Line Parabolic
Method Curve Method Curve Method
Method
2005 - 63040.58 51516.61 20996.43
2006 37,685.78 63566.34 51913.54 41317.46
2007 43,206.78 64096.49 52310.47 57719.18
2008 43,825.78 64631.06 52707.39 70201.58
2009 46,176.78 65170.09 53104.32 78764.67
2010 48,289.78 65713.62 53501.24 83408.45
2011 49,632.78 66261.68 53898.17 84132.91
2012 49,704.78 66814.31 54295.1 80938.06
2013 59,824.78 67371.54 54692.02 73823.89
2014 63,614.78 67933.43 55088.95 62790.41
2015 65,449.78 - 55485.88 47837.61
100
Figure 2.18 Graphical representation of Ammonia demand using the four methods
Table 2.54. Summary of Projected Ammonia Demand Using Each Method

2016 72,351.78 69071.2968 55882.8 6174.075
2017 76,203.56 69647.35826 56279.73 6691.381
2018 80,055.33 70228.22414 56676.65 20536.67
2019 83,907.11 70813.93449 57073.58 35361.78
2020 87,758.89 71404.52973 57470.51 51166.72
2021 91,610.67 72000.05059 57867.43 67951.49
2022 95,462.44 72600.53816 58264.36 85716.09
2023 99,314.22 73206.03385 58661.28 104460.5
2024 103,166.00 73816.57943 59058.21 124184.8
2025 107,017.78 74432.21703 59455.14 144888.9
2026 110,869.56 75052.9891 59852.06 166572.8
101
Regression Analysis for Ammonia Demand

Regression analysis was used to determine the significance of each statistical method
used in the projection of ammonia demand since using single factor analysis of variance
will only yield a confidence level of 93.2% which is below the 95% accepted level. The
following data were calculated using the IBM software SPSS statistics viewer.
Table 2.55.1 Regression Analysis (AGCM vs ASLM) for Ammonia Demand
Figure 2.18.1 Curve Fit Analysis of AGCM vs. ASLM for Ammonia Demand
102
Table 2.55.2 Regression Analysis (SSLM vs ASLM) for Ammonia Demand
Figure 2.18.2 Curve Fit Analysis of SSLM vs. ASLM for Ammonia Demand
103
Table 2.55.3 Regression Analysis (SPCM vs ASLM) for Ammonia Demand
Figure 2.18.3 Curve Fit Analysis of SPCM vs. ASLM for Ammonia Demand
Conclusion:In this regression analysis, 95% confidence level was set before running
the test. Analysis of variance for each method shows sig/p-values are less than 0.05
which is within the accepted value. Thus, choosing ASLM with the lowest standard
deviation as the method of projection for ammonia demand is significant.
104
Figure 2.19 Graphical representation of Ammonia demand using the four methods
Historical Supply of Ammonia
Table 2.56. Historical supply of Ammonia
*(From Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics Database: Philippines. (2005-
2015))
2005 38,960
2006 40,112
2007 42,344
2008 43,912
2009 45,956
2010 46,466
2011 46,933
2012 57,590
2013 60,365
2014 65,346
2015 72,155
105
Figure 2.20 Graphical representation of Ammonia Supply

2015)
The supply for Ammonium Nitrate has reached the 45,000 ton level in the year
2009 as massive increase in the demand on the same year happened. Subsequently,
supply decreases to just suffice the turned down demand in the year after. The supply
begins to increase as the demand of industries consuming the product is continuously
recovering.
106
Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
Where:
𝑎=
𝑁−1
N = number of years
Table 2.57. ASLM analysis for Ammonia Supply

Year Net Weight (ton) A (-) Yc (Y-Yc)2
2005 38,960 3688.333333 - -

2006 40,112 3688.333333 42,648.33 6432986.778
2007 42,344 3688.333333 43,800.33 2120906.778
2008 43,912 3688.333333 46,032.33 4495813.444
2009 45,956 3688.333333 47,600.33 2703832.111
2010 46,466 3688.333333 49,644.33 10101802.78
2011 46,933 3688.333333 50,154.33 10376988.44
2012 57,590 3688.333333 50,621.33 48562315.11
2013 60,365 3688.333333 61,278.33 834177.7778
2014 65,346 3688.333333 64,053.33 1670987.111
2015 72,155 3688.333333 69,034.33 9738560.444
∑ 97038370.78
72,155 − 38,960
𝑎=
10 − 1
107
𝒂 = 3688.333333
𝑎 3688.333333
𝑋= = = 368.833
𝑁 10

𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
𝑌𝑐 = 3688.333333 + 38,960
𝑌𝑐 = 42,648.33
(𝒀 − 𝒀𝒄)𝟐 = 6432986.778

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √97038370.78
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =985.080559
108
Projected Values
Table 2.58. Projected values for Ammonia supply using ASLM
2016 3,688.33 75,843.33

2017 3,688.33 79,531.67
2018 3,688.33 83,220.00
2019 3,688.33 86,908.33
2020 3,688.33 90,596.67
2021 3,688.33 94,285.00
2022 3,688.33 97,973.33
2023 3,688.33 101,661.67
2024 3,688.33 105,350.00
2025 3,688.33 109,038.33
2026 3,688.33 112,726.67
Ammonia Projected Supply (ASLM)

120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00
60,000.00 y = 3688.3x + 72155

R² = 1
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.21. Graphical Representation of the Projected values for Ammonia supply
using ASLM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value
109

Formula:
𝑌𝑖 + 1
𝑌𝑐 =
𝑋
Where:
Table 2.59. AGCM analysis for Ammonia supply

Net Weight Annual %
Year Yc (Y-Yc)2
(tons) Increase increase
2005 38,960 0 0 35855.89 9635476.465
2006 40,112 1,152.00 2.9568789 38453.08 2752013.462
2007 42,344 2,232.00 5.5644196 41238.39 1222368.189
2008 43,912 1,568.00 3.703004 44225.46 98254.3575
2009 45,956 2,044.00 4.6547641 47428.88 2169386.291
2010 46,466 510.00 1.1097572 50864.35 19345474.31
2011 46,933 467.00 1.0050359 54548.66 57998262.58
2012 57,590 10,657.00 22.706837 58499.84 827806.0391
2013 60,365 2,775.00 4.8185449 62737.22 5627417.125
2014 65,346 4,981.00 8.2514702 67281.53 3746266.85
2015 72,155 6,809.00 10.419919 0 0
average % 65.190631 ∑ 103422725.7
∑ Average % 65.190631/100
𝑟= =
𝑁−1 10 − 1
𝒓 =0.072434034
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑌𝑖 + 1/ (1 + 𝑟) = (38453.08)/(1.072434034)
110
𝒀𝒄 = 35855.89

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √103422725.7
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =1016.969644
Projected Values
Table 2.60 Projected values for Ammonia Supply using AGCM
Year Yi-1 Yc
2016 72,155.00 77381.47773
2017 77381.47773 82986.53033
2018 82986.53033 88997.5795
2019 88997.5795 95444.03321
2020 95444.03321 102357.4296
2021 102357.4296 109771.5911
2022 109771.5911 117722.7903
2023 117722.7903 126249.9269
2024 126249.9269 135394.7184
2025 135394.7184 145201.9041
2026 145201.9041 155719.4638
111
Ammonia Projected Supply (AGCM)

180,000.00
160,000.00
140,000.00
120,000.00
y = 7788.4x + 65745
100,000.00 R² = 0.9906
80,000.00
60,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.22 Graphical Representation of the Projected values for Ammonia supply
using AGCM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value

Formula:
Where:
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
112
Table 2.61. SSLM analysis for Ammonia supply

2005 38,960 1 1 38960
2006 40,112 2 4 80224
2007 42,344 3 9 127032
2008 43,912 4 16 175648
2009 45,956 5 25 229780
2010 46,466 6 36 278796
2011 46,933 7 49 328531
2012 57,590 8 64 460720
2013 60,365 9 81 543285
2014 65,346 10 100 653460
2015 72,155 11 121 793705
∑ 560,139.00 66 506 3710141
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
10(3710141) − (66 x 560,139.00)

𝑏=
10 (506) − (66)2
𝒃 =187.8352273
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
113
560,139.00 66
𝑎= − (187.8352273)( )
10 10
𝒂 =54774.1875
Table 2.62. Continuation for SSLM analysis

54774.19 187.8352 54962.02 -16,002.02 256,064,731.364153
54774.19 187.8352 55149.86 -15,037.86 226,137,171.861086
54774.19 187.8352 55337.69 -12,993.69 168,836,062.503228
54774.19 187.8352 55525.53 -11,613.53 134,874,042.108762
54774.19 187.8352 55713.36 -9,757.36 95,206,145.132232
54774.19 187.8352 55901.2 -9,435.20 89,022,977.596365
54774.19 187.8352 56089.03 -9,156.03 83,832,960.273889
54774.19 187.8352 56276.87 1,313.13 1,724,312.187532
54774.19 187.8352 56464.7 3,900.30 15,212,304.632748
54774.19 187.8352 56652.54 8,693.46 75,576,250.723173
54774.19 187.8352 56840.38 15,314.63 234,537,738.890625
∑ 1,381,024,697.273790
𝑌𝑐 = 54774.19 + (187.8352)(1)
𝒀𝒄 =54962.02
√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √1,381,024,697.273790
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =3716.214
114
Projected Values
Table 2.63 Projected values for Ammonia supply using SSLM
2016 12 54774.1875 187.8352 57028.21

2017 13 54774.1875 187.8352 57216.05
2018 14 54774.1875 187.8352 57403.88
2019 15 54774.1875 187.8352 57591.72
2020 16 54774.1875 187.8352 57779.55
2021 17 54774.1875 187.8352 57967.39
2022 18 54774.1875 187.8352 58155.22
2023 19 54774.1875 187.8352 58343.06
2024 20 54774.1875 187.8352 58530.89
2025 21 54774.1875 187.8352 58718.73
2026 22 54774.1875 187.8352 58906.56
Ammonia Projected Supply (SSLM)

59,500.00
59,000.00
58,500.00
58,000.00
y = 187.84x + 56840
57,500.00 R² = 1
57,000.00
56,500.00
56,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.23. Graphical Representation of the Projected values for Ammonia supply
using SSLM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value
115

Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐𝑥 2
Where:
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
Table 2.64. SPCM analysis for Ammonia supply
Year Net Weight (tons) X X2 X4 XY X2Y
2005 38,960 -11 121 14641 -428560 4714160

2006 40,112 -9 81 6561 -361008 3249072
2007 42,344 -7 49 2401 -296408 2074856
2008 43,912 -5 25 625 -219560 1097800
2009 45,956 -3 9 81 -137868 413604
2010 46,466 -1 1 1 -46466 46466
2011 46,933 1 1 1 46933 46933
2012 57,590 3 9 81 172770 518310
2013 60,365 5 25 625 301825 1509125
2014 65,346 7 49 2401 457422 3201954
2015 72,155 9 81 6561 649395 5844555
∑ 560,139.00 451 33979 138475 22716835
116
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(33979)(560,139.00) − (451)(22716835)
𝑎=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒂 =85808.71493
∑ 𝑋𝑌 138475
𝑏= 2
=
∑𝑋 451
𝒃 = 307.0399113
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(9)(22716835) − (451))(560,139.00)
𝑐=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒄 = -470.375686
117
Table 2.65 Continuation for SPCM analysis

85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 25515.82 1.81E+08
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 44944.93 23357166
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 60611.03 3.34E+08
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 72514.12 8.18E+08
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 80654.21 1.2E+09
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 85031.3 1.49E+09
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 85645.38 1.5E+09
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 82496.45 6.2E+08
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 75584.52 2.32E+08
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 64909.59 190457.4
85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 50471.64 4.7E+08
∑ 6.87E+09

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √6.87E + 09
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =8287.394
118
Projected Values
Table 2.66. Projected values for the supply of Ammonia using SPCM
Year X a b C Yc (a+bX+cX2)
2016 13 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 10306.74
2017 14 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -2086.36
2018 15 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -15420.2
2019 16 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -29694.8
2020 17 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -44910.2
2021 18 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -61066.3
2022 19 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -78163.1
2023 20 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -96200.8
2024 21 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -115179
2025 22 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -135098
2026 23 85808.71 307.0399 -470.376 -155958
Ammonia Projected Supply (SPCM)

180,000.00
160,000.00
140,000.00
120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00
y = 15689x - 26493
60,000.00
R² = 0.9723
40,000.00
20,000.00
-
(20,000.00) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.24 Graphical Representation of the Projected values for Ammonia supply
using SPCM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value
119
Table 2.67 Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using each method
Arithmetic straight line method with the least standard deviation value of 985.08 among
the four statistical methods will be used as the method to project the supply of ammonia.
Table 2.68 Summary of Ammonia supply using each method
Straight Geometric
Line Curve
Method Curve Method
Method Method
2005 - 35855.89 54962.02 25515.82
2006 42,648.33 38453.08 55149.86 44944.93
2007 43,800.33 41238.39 55337.69 60611.03
2008 46,032.33 44225.46 55525.53 72514.12
2009 47,600.33 47428.88 55713.36 80654.21
2010 49,644.33 50864.35 55901.2 85031.3
2011 50,154.33 54548.66 56089.03 85645.38
2012 50,621.33 58499.84 56276.87 82496.45
2013 61,278.33 62737.22 56464.7 75584.52
2014 64,053.33 67281.53 56652.54 64909.59
2015 69,034.33 - 56840.38 50471.64
120
Analysis Of Variance (Anova): Single Factor

Table 2.69 Analysis of Variance of the Four Methods used in the projection of
Ammonia Supply
SUMMARY
Arithmetic Straight Line
11.00 1,037,135.00 94,285.00 149,641,840.39
Method
Arithmetic Geometric
11.00 1,237,227.44 112,475.22 673,577,720.89
Curve Method
Statistical Straight Line
11.00 637,641.26 57,967.39 388,101.86
Method
Statistical Parabolic
11.00 744,083.50 67,643.95 2,784,804,764.15
Method
Source of F
SS df MS F P-value
Variation crit
Between
80,560,607,321.27 3.00 26,853,535,773.7 5.92 0.0004 2.8
Groups
Within
181,414,145,395.61 40.00 4,535,353,634.8
Groups
Total 261,974,752,716.88 43.00
Conclusion: if F > F crit, we reject the null hypothesis. This is the case, 5.92 > 2.84. Therefore,
we reject the null hypothesis. The means of the four populations are not all equal. At least one
of the means is different. Thus, choosing ASLM as the method of projection to project the
supply of ammonia is significant.
121
Figure 2.25. Graphical representation of Ammonia supply using the four methods
Table 2.70 Summary of projected supply of Ammonia using each method

2016 75,843.33 77381.47773 57028.21 10306.74
2017 79,531.67 82986.53033 57216.05 -2086.36
2018 83,220.00 88997.5795 57403.88 -15420.2
2019 86,908.33 95444.03321 57591.72 -29694.8
2020 90,596.67 102357.4296 57779.55 -44910.2
2021 94,285.00 109771.5911 57967.39 -61066.3
2022 97,973.33 117722.7903 58155.22 -78163.1
2023 101,661.67 126249.9269 58343.06 -96200.8
2024 105,350.00 135394.7184 58530.89 -115179
2025 109,038.33 145201.9041 58718.73 -135098
2026 112,726.67 155719.4638 58906.56 -155958
122
Figure 2.26. Graphical Representation of projected supply of Ammonia
Table 2.71. Difference of historical demand and supply of Ammonia using ASLM
Year Demand Supply
2005 - -
2006 37,685.78 42,648.33
2007 43,206.78 43,800.33
2008 43,825.78 46,032.33
2009 46,176.78 47,600.33
2010 48,289.78 49,644.33
2011 49,632.78 50,154.33
2012 49,704.78 50,621.33
2013 59,824.78 61,278.33
2014 63,614.78 64,053.33
2015 65,449.78 69,034.33
123
80,000.00
Historical Demand vs Supply of Ammonia
70,000.00
60,000.00
50,000.00
40,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
Demand
10,000.00
Supply
0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Supply for Ammonia
Table 2.72. Difference of projected demand and supply of Ammonia

Year Demand, tons Supply, tons Imports, tons Total Supply
2016 72,351.78 75,843.33 14,249.80 90,093.13
2017 76,203.56 79,531.67 14,962.29 94,493.96
2018 80,055.33 83,220.00 15,710.40 98,930.40
2019 83,907.11 86,908.33 16,495.92 103,404.25
2020 87,758.89 90,596.67 17,320.72 107,917.39
2021 91,610.67 94,285.00 18,186.76 112,471.76
2022 95,462.44 97,973.33 19,096.09 117,069.42
2023 99,314.22 101,661.67 20,050.90 121,712.57
2024 103,166.00 105,350.00 21,053.44 126,403.44
2025 107,017.78 109,038.33 22,106.12 131,144.45
2026 110,869.56 112,726.67 23,211.42 135,938.09
Table 2.73. shows the difference of projected demand and supply of Ammonia
using ASLM and the projected amount of nitric acid to be imported. Imported amount
of nitric acid is derived from the 2016-2017 available data assuming an annual 5%
increase on importation.
124
Projected Demand v.s. Supply of Ammonia (ASLM)
160,000.00
140,000.00
120,000.00
100,000.00 Projected Demand (ASLM)
80,000.00
60,000.00 Local and Import
Projected Supply
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00
Figure 2.28. Graphical Representation of the Differences of the Projected Demand

and Supply for Ammonia
Raw Material (Nitric Acid)
Table 2.73. Historical Demand of Nitric Acid
*(From Foreign Trade Statistics of the Philippines (2005-2015))
2005 38,855
2006 39,325
2007 39,830
2008 42,405
2009 44,454
2010 45,756
2011 45,854
2012 58,972
2013 59,754
2014 61,512
2015 65,047
125

Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
Where:
𝑎=
𝑁−1
N = number of years
Table 2.74 ASLM Analysis for Nitric Acid Demand

Net Weight
Year Yc (Y-Yc)2
(tons)
2005 38,855 0 0
2006 39,325 41,765.22 5954684.49
2007 39,830 42,235.22 5785093.94
2008 42,405 42,740.22 112373.94
2009 44,454 45,315.22 741703.72
2010 45,756 47,364.22 2586378.72
2011 45,854 48,666.22 7908593.83
2012 58,972 48,764.22 104198727.16
2013 59,754 61,882.22 4529329.83
2014 61,512 62,664.22 1327616.05
2015 65,047 64,422.22 390347.27
Σ 133534848.94
126
65,047 − 38,855
𝑎=
10 − 1
𝒂 = 2910.222222
𝑎 2910.2222
𝑋= = = 291.0222222
𝑁 10

𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
𝑌𝑐 = 2910.22222 +38,855
𝒀𝒄 = 41,765.222

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√133534848.94
𝜎=
10
𝝈 =1155.572797
127
Projected Values
Table 2.75 Projected values for Nitric Acid using ASLM
Year A Yc (A+Yi+1)
2016 2910.222222 67,957.22

2017 2910.222222 70,867.44
2018 2910.222222 73,777.67
2019 2910.222222 76,687.89
2020 2910.222222 79,598.11
2021 2910.222222 82,508.33
2022 2910.222222 85,418.56
2023 2910.222222 88,328.78
2024 2910.222222 91,239.00
2025 2910.222222 94,149.22
2026 2910.222222 97,059.44

Formula:
𝑌𝑖 + 1
𝑌𝑐 =
𝑋
Where:
128
Table 2.76. AGCM analysis for Nitric Acid

Year Net Weight (tons) Yi + 1 % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
2005 38,855 0 0 35734.41 9738089.904
2006 39,325 5,521.00 1.2096255 37940.29 1917416.591
2007 39,830 619.00 1.2841704 40282.34 204615.1616
2008 42,405 2,351.00 6.4649761 42768.97 132474.9117
2009 44,454 2,113.00 4.8319774 45409.1 912210.9255
2010 45,756 1,343.00 2.9288703 48212.2 6032911.079
2011 45,854 72.00 0.2141796 51188.33 28455129.36
2012 58,972 10,120.00 28.608191 54348.19 21379636.08
2013 59,754 3,790.00 1.326053 57703.1 4206195.291
2014 61,512 1,835.00 2.9420625 61265.11 60955.59364
2015 65,047 6,902.00 5.7468461 0 0
average % 55.556952 ∑ 73039634.9
55.556952
∑ Average % 100
𝑟= =
𝑁−1 10 − 1
𝒓 = 0.061729947

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √73039634.9
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =854.6322888
129
Projected Values
Table 2.77. Projected values for Nitric Acid using AGCM
Year Yi-1 Yc
2016 65,047.00 69062.34785

2017 69062.34785 73325.56291
2018 73325.56291 77851.94601
2019 77851.94601 82657.74249
2020 82657.74249 87760.20054
2021 87760.20054 93177.63305
2022 93177.63305 98929.48338
2023 98929.48338 105036.3951
2024 105036.3951 111520.2862
2025 111520.2862 118404.4276
2026 118404.4276 125713.5266

Formula:
Where:
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
130
Table 2.78 SSLM Analysis for Nitric Acid

Net Weight
Year X X2 XY
(tons)
2005 38,855 1 1 38855
2006 39,325 2 4 78650
2007 39,830 3 9 119490
2008 42,405 4 16 169620
2009 44,454 5 25 222270
2010 45,756 6 36 274536
2011 45,854 7 49 320978
2012 58,972 8 64 471776
2013 59,754 9 81 537786
2014 61,512 10 100 615120
2015 65,047 11 121 715517
∑ 541,764.00 66 506 3564598
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
10(3564598) − (66 x541,764.00)

𝑏=
10(506) − 66
𝒃 =-156.8806818
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
541,764.00 66
𝑎= − (−156.8806818)( )
10 10
131
𝒂 =55211.8125
Table 2.79. Continuation for SSLM Analysis
A b Yc Y-Yc (Y-Yc)2
55211.81 -156.881 55054.93 -16,199.93 262,437,790.913740
55211.81 -156.881 54898.05 -15,573.05 242,519,921.695797
55211.81 -156.881 54741.17 -14,911.17 222,343,004.324509
55211.81 -156.881 54584.29 -12,179.29 148,335,099.368059
55211.81 -156.881 54427.41 -9,973.41 99,468,888.894628
55211.81 -156.881 54270.53 -8,514.53 72,497,194.029216
55211.81 -156.881 54113.65 -8,259.65 68,221,780.578642
55211.81 -156.881 53956.77 5,015.23 25,152,561.588359
55211.81 -156.881 53799.89 5,954.11 35,451,469.194731
55211.81 -156.881 53643.01 7,868.99 61,921,071.579578
55211.81 -156.881 53486.13 11,560.88 133,653,830.765625
∑ 1,372,002,612.932880

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2
𝜎=
𝑁
√1,372,002,612.932880
σ=
10
𝝈 =3704.055
132
Projected Values
Table 2.80 Projected values for Nitric Acid using SSLM
Year X a B Yc (a+bX)
2016 12 55211.8125 -156.881 53329.24
2017 13 55211.8125 -156.881 53172.36
2018 14 55211.8125 -156.881 53015.48
2019 15 55211.8125 -156.881 52858.6
2020 16 55211.8125 -156.881 52701.72
2021 17 55211.8125 -156.881 52544.84
2022 18 55211.8125 -156.881 52387.96
2023 19 55211.8125 -156.881 52231.08
2024 20 55211.8125 -156.881 52074.2
2025 21 55211.8125 -156.881 51917.32
2026 22 55211.8125 -156.881 51760.44

Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐𝑥 2
Where:
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
133
Table 2.81. SPM Analysis for Nitric Acid

Net Weight
Year X X2 X4 XY X2Y
(tons)
2005 38,855 -11 121 14641 -427405 4701455
2006 39,325 -9 81 6561 -353925 3185325
2007 39,830 -7 49 2401 -278810 1951670
2008 42,405 -5 25 625 -212025 1060125
2009 44,454 -3 9 81 -133362 400086
2010 45,756 -1 1 1 -45756 45756
2011 45,854 1 1 1 45854 45854
2012 58,972 3 9 81 176916 530748
2013 59,754 5 25 625 298770 1493850
2014 61,512 7 49 2401 430584 3014088
2015 65,047 9 81 6561 585423 5268807
∑ 537,394.00 451 33979 86264 21697764
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(33979)(541764) − (451)(21697764)
𝑎=
9(33979) − 4512
𝒂 =84199.85736
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
86264
𝑏=
451
134
𝒃 =191.2727273
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
9(21697764) − (451)(541764)
𝑐=
9(33979) − 4512
𝒄 =-479.0126745
Table 2.82. Continuation for SPM Analysis
A B C x Yc (Y-Yc)2
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 -11 24135.32 216668869
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 -9 43678.38 18951884.1
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 -7 59389.33 382567281
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 -5 71268.18 833082978
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 -3 79314.93 1215284099
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 -1 83529.57 1426842738
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 1 83912.12 1448420301
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 3 80462.56 461844232
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 5 73180.9 180281755
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 7 62067.15 308186.411
84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 9 47121.29 321331249
∑ 6505583573

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √6505583573
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =8065.72
135
Projected Values
Table 2.83. Projected values for Nitric Acid using SPM
Year X a b c Yc (a+bX+cX2)
2016 13 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 5733.261
2017 14 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 7008.81
2018 15 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 20708.9
2019 16 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 35367
2020 17 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 50983.2
2021 18 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 67557.3
2022 19 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 85089.5
2023 20 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 103580
2024 21 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 123028
2025 22 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 143434
2026 23 84199.86 191.2727 -479.013 164799
Table 2.84. Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using each
method
Arithmetic geometric curve method with the least standard deviation value of
854.6322888 among the four statistical methods will be used as the method to project
the demand of nitric acid.
136
Choosing Projected Demand

Table 2.85. Summary of Nitric Acid demand using each method
Arithmetic
Arithmetic Statistical Statistical
Geometric
Year Straight Line Straight Line Parabolic
Curve
Method Method Curve Method
Method
2005 - 35734.41 55054.93 24135.32
2006 41,765.22 37940.29 54898.05 43678.38
2007 42,235.22 40282.34 54741.17 59389.33
2008 42,740.22 42768.97 54584.29 71268.18
2009 45,315.22 45409.1 54427.41 79314.93
2010 47,364.22 48212.2 54270.53 83529.57
2011 48,666.22 51188.33 54113.65 83912.12
2012 48,764.22 54348.19 53956.77 80462.56
2013 61,882.22 57703.1 53799.89 73180.9
2014 62,664.22 61265.11 53643.01 62067.15
2015 64,422.22 - 53486.13 47121.29
137
Figure 2.29 Graphical representation of Nitric Acid historical demand using the four
methods
Table 2.86. Summary of Projected Nitric Acid Demand Using Each Method
2016 67,957.22 69062.34785 53329.24 5733.261
2017 70,867.44 73325.56291 53172.36 7008.809
2018 73,777.67 77851.94601 53015.48 20708.9
2019 76,687.89 82657.74249 52858.6 35367.02
2020 79,598.11 87760.20054 52701.72 50983.17
2021 82,508.33 93177.63305 52544.84 67557.34
2022 85,418.56 98929.48338 52387.96 85089.54
2023 88,328.78 105036.3951 52231.08 103579.8
2024 91,239.00 111520.2862 52074.2 123028
2025 94,149.22 118404.4276 51917.32 143434.3
2026 97,059.44 125713.5266 51760.44 164798.6
138

Table 2.87. Analysis of Variance using Single Factor for the Four Statistical Methods
Used in the Projection of Nitric Acid Demand
Column 1 11 907591.66 82508.33273 93163324.62
Column 2 11 1043439.552 94858.14107 352462232.2
Column 3 11 577993.24 52544.84 270724.6784
Column 4 11 807288.74 73389.88545 3051499853
Source of
SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Between
10,503,053,300 3 3,501,017,767 4.0041 0.0138 2.83
Groups
Within
34,973,961,345 40 874,349,033
Groups
Total 45,477,014,645 43
Conclusion: if F > F crit, we reject the null hypothesis. This is the case, 4.00 > 2.84. Therefore,
we reject the null hypothesis. The means of the four populations are not all equal. At least one
of the means is different. Thus, choosing AGCM as the method of projection to project the
demand of Nitric Acid is significant.
139
Figure 2.30 Graphical representation of Nitric Acid projected demand using the four
methods
Historical Supply of Nitric Acid

Table 2.88. Historical supply of Nitric Acid
*(From Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics Database: Philippines. (2005-
2015))
2005 40,853
2006 40,956
2007 42,346
2008 48,956
2009 54,056
2010 55,460
2011 55,590
2012 59,565
2013 60,370
2014 62,392
2015 67,017
140
Figure 2.31 Graphical representation of Nitric Acid Supply

2015)
The supply for Ammonium Nitrate has reached the 54,000 ton level in
the year 2009 as massive increase in the demand on the same year happened.
Subsequently, supply decreases to just suffice the turned down demand in the year after.
The supply begins to increase as the demand of industries consuming the product is
continuously recovering.
Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
Where:
𝑎=
𝑁−1
N = number of years
141
Table 2.89. ASLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Supply
Year Net Weight (tons) A (-) Yc (Y-Yc)2
2005 40,853 2907.111111 - -

2006 40,956 2907.111111 43,760.11 7863039.123
2007 42,346 2907.111111 43,863.11 2301626.123
2008 48,956 2907.111111 45,253.11 13711386.12
2009 54,056 2907.111111 51,863.11 4808761.679
2010 55,460 2907.111111 56,963.11 2259343.012
2011 55,590 2907.111111 58,367.11 7712346.123
2012 59,565 2907.111111 58,497.11 1140386.679
2013 60,370 2907.111111 62,472.11 4418871.123
2014 62,392 2907.111111 63,277.11 783421.679
2015 67,017 2907.111111 65,299.11 2951142.235
∑ 47950323.9
67,017 − 40,853
𝑎=
10 − 1
𝒂 = 2907.111111
𝑎 2907.11111
𝑋= = = 290.711111
𝑁 10

𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑌𝑖 − 1
𝑌𝑐 = 2907.11111 + 40,853
𝑌𝑐 = 43,760.11
142
(𝒀 − 𝒀𝒄)𝟐 = 𝟕𝟖𝟔𝟑𝟎𝟑𝟗. 𝟏𝟐𝟑

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √47950323.9
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =692.4617
Projected Values

Table 2.90. Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using ASLM
2016 2,907.11 69,924.11

2017 2,907.11 72,831.22
2018 2,907.11 75,738.33
2019 2,907.11 78,645.44
2020 2,907.11 81,552.56
2021 2,907.11 84,459.67
2022 2,907.11 87,366.78
2023 2,907.11 90,273.89
2024 2,907.11 93,181.00
2025 2,907.11 96,088.11
2026 2,907.11 98,995.22
143
Nitric Acid Projected Supply (ASLM)

120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00
y = 2910.2x + 65047
60,000.00 R² = 1
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Figure 2.32 Graphical Representation of the Projected Values of Supply for Nitric
Acid using ASLM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value

Formula:
𝑌𝑖 + 1
𝑌𝑐 =
𝑋
Where:
144
Table 2.91. AGCM analysis for Nitric Acid supply

Net Weight Annual %
Year Yc (Y-Yc)2
(tons) Increase increase
2005 40,853 0 0 38308.47 6474608.736
2006 40,956 103.00 0.2521235 40512.02 197120.3337
2007 42,346 1,390.00 3.3938861 42842.31 246324.1992
2008 48,956 6,610.00 15.609503 45306.64 13317796.44
2009 54,056 5,100.00 10.417518 47912.73 37739776.25
2010 55,460 1,404.00 2.5973065 50668.72 22956376.71
2011 55,590 130.00 0.2344032 53583.24 4027103.684
2012 59,565 3,975.00 7.1505666 56665.4 8407689.631
2013 60,370 805.00 1.3514648 59924.85 198158.1717
2014 62,392 2,022.00 3.3493457 63371.79 959987.3781
2015 67,017 4,625.00 7.4128093 0 0
average % 51.768926 ∑ 94524941.53
∑ Average % 51.768926/100
𝑟= =
𝑁−1 10 − 1
𝒓 = 0.057521029
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑌𝑖 + 1/ (1 + 𝑟) = (40512.02)/(1.057521029)
𝒀𝒄 = 𝟑𝟖𝟑𝟎𝟖. 𝟒𝟕

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √94524941.53
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =972.2393817
145
Projected Values
Table 2.92 Projected Nitric Acid Supply using AGCM
Year Yi-1 Yc
2016 67,017.00 70871.88681
2017 70871.88681 74948.51067
2018 74948.51067 79259.62613
2019 79259.62613 83818.72139
2020 83818.72139 88640.0605
2021 88640.0605 93738.728
2022 93738.728 99130.67609
2023 99130.67609 104832.7746
2024 104832.7746 110862.8637
2025 110862.8637 117239.8097
2026 117239.8097 123983.5642
Nitric Acid Projected Supply (AGCM)

140,000.00
120,000.00
100,000.00
y = 5291.4x + 63463
80,000.00 R² = 0.994
60,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
-
20162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Acid using AGCM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value
146

Formula:
Where:
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
Table 2.93. SSLM analysis for Nitric Acid supply

2005 40,853 1 1 40853
2006 40,956 2 4 81912
2007 42,346 3 9 127038
2008 48,956 4 16 195824
2009 54,056 5 25 270280
2010 55,460 6 36 332760
2011 55,590 7 49 389130
2012 59,565 8 64 476520
2013 60,370 9 81 543330
2014 62,392 10 100 623920
2015 67,017 11 121 737187
∑ 587,561.00 66 506 3818754
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑏=
𝑛 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2
147
10(3818754) − (66 x 587,561.00)

𝑏=
10 (506) − (66)2
𝒃 =-840.1789773
∑𝑌 ∑𝑋
𝑎= −𝑏
𝑛 𝑛
587,561.00 66
𝑎= − (−840.1789773)( )
10 10
𝒂 = 𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟎𝟏. 𝟐𝟖
Table 2.94. Continuation for SSLM analysis

64301.28 -840.179 63461.1 -22,608.10 511,126,288.374096
64301.28 -840.179 62620.92 -21,664.92 469,368,901.397929
64301.28 -840.179 61780.74 -19,434.74 377,709,286.713100
64301.28 -840.179 60940.57 -11,984.57 143,629,806.410519
64301.28 -840.179 60100.39 -6,044.39 36,534,606.512913
64301.28 -840.179 59260.21 -3,800.21 14,441,576.179373
64301.28 -840.179 58420.03 -2,830.03 8,009,060.796262
64301.28 -840.179 57579.85 1,985.15 3,940,822.778353
64301.28 -840.179 56739.67 3,630.33 13,179,292.608600
64301.28 -840.179 55899.49 6,492.51 42,152,666.917686
64301.28 -840.179 55059.31 11,957.69 142,986,290.347656
∑ 1,763,078,599.036490
𝑌𝑐 = 64301.28 + (−840.179)(1)
148
𝒀𝒄 = 63461.1

√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √1,763,078,599.036490
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =4198.903
Projected Values
Table 2.95. Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using SSLM
2016 12 64301.28125 -840.179 54219.13

2017 13 64301.28125 -840.179 53378.95
2018 14 64301.28125 -840.179 52538.78
2019 15 64301.28125 -840.179 51698.6
2020 16 64301.28125 -840.179 50858.42
2021 17 64301.28125 -840.179 50018.24
2022 18 64301.28125 -840.179 49178.06
2023 19 64301.28125 -840.179 48337.88
2024 20 64301.28125 -840.179 47497.7
2025 21 64301.28125 -840.179 46657.52
2026 22 64301.28125 -840.179 45817.34
149
Nitric Acid Projected Supply (SSLM)

56,000.00
54,000.00
52,000.00
50,000.00
48,000.00
46,000.00
y = -840.18x + 55059
44,000.00
R² = 1
42,000.00
40,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Acid using SSLM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value

Formula:
𝑌𝑐 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐𝑥 2
Where:
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
∑ 𝑋𝑌
𝑏=
∑ 𝑋2
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
150
Table 2.96. SPCM analysis for Nitric Acid supply

Net Weight
Year X X2 X4 XY X2Y
(tons)
2005 40,853 -11 121 14641 -449383 4943213
2006 40,956 -9 81 6561 -368604 3317436
2007 42,346 -7 49 2401 -296422 2074954
2008 48,956 -5 25 625 -244780 1223900
2009 54,056 -3 9 81 -162168 486504
2010 55,460 -1 1 1 -55460 55460
2011 55,590 1 1 1 55590 55590
2012 59,565 3 9 81 178695 536085
2013 60,370 5 25 625 301850 1509250
2014 62,392 7 49 2401 436744 3057208
2015 67,017 9 81 6561 603153 5428377
∑ 587,561.00 451 33979 -785 22687977
(∑ 𝑋 4 )(∑ 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌)
𝑎=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(33979)(587,561.00) − (451)(22687977)
𝑎=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒂 =95034.25048
∑ 𝑋𝑌 −785
𝑏= 2
=
∑𝑋 451
𝒃 = -1.740576497
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 2 𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )(∑ 𝑌)
𝑐=
𝑛(∑ 𝑋 4 ) − (∑ 𝑋 2 )2
(9)(22687977) − (451))(587,561.00)
𝑐=
(9)(33979) − (451)2
𝒄 = -593.6746216
151
Table 2.97. Continuation for SPCM analysis

95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 23218.77 3.11E+08
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 46962.27 36075295
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 65956.38 5.57E+08
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 80201.09 9.76E+08
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 89696.4 1.27E+09
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 94442.32 1.52E+09
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 94438.84 1.51E+09
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 89685.96 9.07E+08
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 80183.68 3.93E+08
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 65932.01 12531671
95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 46930.94 4.03E+08
∑ 7.9E+09
√∑(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 √7.9E + 10
𝜎= =
𝑁 10
𝝈 =8885.76
152
Projected Values
Table 2.98 Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using SPCM
-Yc
Year X a b C
(a+bX+cX2)
2016 13 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 5319.388
2017 14 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 21350.34
2018 15 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 38568.65
2019 16 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 56974.3
2020 17 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 76567.3
2021 18 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 97347.66
2022 19 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 119315.4
2023 20 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 142470.4
2024 21 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 166812.8
2025 22 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 192342.6
2026 23 95034.25 -1.74058 -593.675 219059.7
Nitric Acid Projected Supply (SPCM)

450,000.00
400,000.00
350,000.00
300,000.00
250,000.00
y = 39490x - 39976
200,000.00
R² = 0.9941
150,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
-
(50,000.00) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Acid using SPCM showing the equation and the predicted R-squared value
153
Table 2.99. Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using each method
Arithmetic geometric curve method with the least standard deviation value of 692.46
among the four statistical methods will be used as the method to project the supply of
nitric acid.

Table 2.100 Summary of Nitric Acid supply using each method
Straight Geometric
Line Curve
Method Curve Method
Method Method
2005 - 38308.47 63461.1 23218.77
2006 43,760.11 40512.02 62620.92 46962.27
2007 43,863.11 42842.31 61780.74 65956.38
2008 45,253.11 45306.64 60940.57 80201.09
2009 51,863.11 47912.73 60100.39 89696.4
2010 56,963.11 50668.72 59260.21 94442.32
2011 58,367.11 53583.24 58420.03 94438.84
2012 58,497.11 56665.4 57579.85 89685.96
2013 62,472.11 59924.85 56739.67 80183.68
2014 63,277.11 63371.79 55899.49 65932.01
2015 65,299.11 - 55059.31 46930.94
154
Figure 2.36. Graphical representation of Nitric Acid Supply using the four methods
155
Table 2.101. Summary of projected supply of Nitric Acid using each method
2016 69,924.11 70871.88681 54219.13 5319.388
2017 72,831.22 74948.51067 53378.95 21350.34
2018 75,738.33 79259.62613 52538.78 38568.65
2019 78,645.44 83818.72139 51698.6 56974.3
2020 81,552.56 88640.0605 50858.42 76567.3
2021 84,459.67 93738.728 50018.24 97347.66
2022 87,366.78 99130.67609 49178.06 119315.4
2023 90,273.89 104832.7746 48337.88 142470.4
2024 93,181.00 110862.8637 47497.7 166812.8
2025 96,088.11 117239.8097 46657.52 192342.6
2026 98,995.22 123983.5642 45817.34 219059.7
Figure 2.37. Graphical Representation of Projected Nitric Acid Supply
156

Table 2.102 Analysis of Variance using Single Factor for the Four Statistical Methods
Used in the Projection of Nitric Acid Supply
Arithmetic
Straight Line 11.00 907,591.66 82,508.33 93,163,324.62
Method
Arithmetic
Geometric Curve 11.00 1,047,327.22 95,211.57 309,858,822.41
Method
Statistical Straight
11.00 550,200.62 50,018.24 7,764,911.63
Line Method
Statistical
11.00 2,166,584.24 196,962.20 17,254,869,009.05
Parabolic Method
Source of F
SS df MS F P-value
Variation crit
Between
132,838,269,027.73 3.00 44,279,423,009 10.03 0.00005 2.84
Groups
Within
176,656,560,677.09 40.00 4,416,414,016
Groups
Total 309,494,829,704.82 43.00
equal. At least one of the means is different. Thus, choosing ASLM with the lowest
standard deviation as the method of projection for nitric acid supply is significant.
157
Table 2.103. Difference of historical demand and supply of nitric acid using ASLM
2005 35734.41 38308.47
2006 37940.29 40512.02
2007 40282.34 42842.31
2008 42768.97 45306.64
2009 45409.1 47912.73
2010 48212.2 50668.72
2011 51188.33 53583.24
2012 54348.19 56665.4
2013 57703.1 59924.85
2014 61265.11 63371.79
2015 - -
Historical Demand vs Supply of Nitric Acid

70000
60000
50000
40000
Demand
30000 Supply
20000
10000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Supply for Nitric Acid using ASLM
Table 2.104 Difference of projected demand and supply of nitric acid
158
*Foreign Trade Statistics of the Philippines (Retrieved: March, 2018)

Import, tons Total
Supply
2016 69062.3479 70871.88681 12,403.65 83,275.54
2017 73325.5629 74948.51067 13,023.84 87,972.35
2018 77851.946 79259.62613 13,675.03 92,934.65
2019 82657.7425 83818.72139 14,358.78 98,177.50
2020 87760.2005 88640.0605 15,076.72 103,716.78
2021 93177.6331 93738.728 15,830.56 109,569.28
2022 98929.4834 99130.67609 16,622.08 115,752.76
2023 105036.395 104832.7746 17,453.19 122,285.96
2024 111520.286 110862.8637 18,325.85 129,188.71
2025 118404.428 117239.8097 19,242.14 136,481.95
2026 125713.527 123983.5642 20,204.25 144,187.81
Table 2.106 shows the difference of projected demand and supply of Nitric Acid
using ASLM and the projected amount of nitric acid to be imported. Imported amount
of nitric acid is derived from the 2016-2017 available data assuming an annual 5%
increase on importation.
159
Projected Demand v.s. Supply of Nitric Acid

(ASLM)
160,000.00
140,000.00
120,000.00
100,000.00
Projected Demand
80,000.00 (ASLM)
60,000.00 Local and Import
40,000.00 Projected Supply
20,000.00
-
Figure 2.39. Graphical Representation of the Differences of the Projected Demand

and Supply of Nitric Acid including the amount of imported nitric acid from other
countries.
160
Ammonium Nitrate Uses and Applications

Fertilizer
Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is the most common use of the compound in the Philippines
but it also has a very volatile nature, which makes it useful in certain industries.
Ammonium nitrate is an odorless, nearly colorless crystal salt. Using ammonium nitrate
in gardens and large scale agricultural fields enhances plant growth and provides a ready
supply of nitrogen from which plants can draw. (IPNI, Retrieved: Aug, 2017)
Industrial and Construction Settings

Ammonium Nitrate is employed in some industrial and construction settings. The
chemical compound is explosive and useful in mining, demolition activities and quarry
work. Manufacturers intentionally make it porous to allow rapid adsorption of fuel oil
(termed “ANFO”). Ammonium Nitrate is also being used as an ingredient in the
manufacturing of matches.
Food Preservation
Food preservation is another area that uses ammonium nitrate. The compound makes an
excellent cold pack when one bag of water and one bag of the compound are united.
When the barrier separating the bags is ruptured, the ammonium nitrate rapidly dissolves
in an endothermic reaction, lowering the pack’s temperature to 2 to 3 degrees Celsius
within a very short time. (IPNI, Retrieved: Aug, 2017)
Gas Industry/ Medical Use

The gas industry that manufactures nitrous oxide requires a continuous supply of
ammonium nitrate. In turn, hospitals and pharmaceutical manufacturers depend on a
steady supply of nitrous oxide (N2O or laughing gas). Ammonium nitrate is a key
component in the production of nitrous oxide for healthcare use. Nitrous oxide is used in
the health sector around the world as: Analgesic in surgery and dentistry, anesthetics in
161
surgery and dentistry, and used as a propellant for drugs packaged in aerosols (YARA,
Retrieved: Dec, 2017)
List of Possible Clients
Table 2.105. List of Possible Clients
Comapany Name Company Profile Address
Atlas Fertilizer
Corporation (AFC),
incorporated on
October 10, 1957, is
the oldest operating
and the first fertilizer 2/Flr. Builders
company in the Center Bldg.
Atlas Fertilizer Corporation (AFC)
Philippines to achieve 170 Salcedo Street,
full scale Legazpi Village
manufacturing of a Makati City, Metro
complete line of Manila
mixed fertilizer Philippines 1229
grades, alternatively
known as compound
inorganic fertilizer and
more famously called
by our farmers as the
NP- NPK- NK
fertilizers.
162
Norsk Hydro ASA

(Hydro) is an
integrated aluminum
company with
operations in various
activities along the
aluminum industry's
value chain. The
Company operates
through six segments:
Bauxite & Alumina,
which includes bauxite
mining activities, Unit 1404, Antel
production of alumina 2000, 121 Valero
and related Street, Salcedo
commercial activities, Village, Makati City,
primarily the sale of Manila, Philippines.
alumina; Primary
Metal, which includes
Norsk Hydro (Philippines) Inc.
primary aluminum
production and casting
activities; Metal
Markets, which
include sales activities
relating to products
from the its primary
metal plants and
operational
responsibility for
163
Hydro's stand-alone
remelters, as well as
physical and financial
metal trading
activities; Rolled
Products, which
include Hydro's rolling
mills; Energy, which
includes energy
sourcing for Hydro's
aluminum operations
around the world, and
Other and
eliminations, which
consists of its captive
insurance company its
industry parks,
internal service
providers, operation of
Sapa and other
activities.
The Company offers a
comprehensive
selection of chemical 10 Resthaven St.,
products to service the SFDM, Quezon City,
following industries: Metro Manila,
food ingredients, Philippines
industrial,
agribusiness, feeds
164
and veterinary care,

pharmaceutical,
personal care and
cosmetics. It also
provides value-added
service to its
customers by
Sytengco Inc. providing logistics
management in
sourcing, procuring,
warehousing and
transporting the
chemical products and
materials. It competes
on the basis of price,
product diversity,
supply availability,
product reliability and
market compatibility.
Dyno Nobel provides
customer solutions
through our people,
Dyno Nobel Philippines, Inc. our products, and our Admin Bldg,
services. Our blasters Bacong, Negros
are among the most Oriental
highly trained in the
industry. Dyno Nobel
provides a full range
of reliable explosives
165
products from
manufacturing plants
around the world, and
blasting services from
a distribution network
unmatched in the
industry. Our R&D is
focused on practical
ways to use new
technologies to benefit
our customers.
As a supply chain Lot 6, RDC

partner, Petbowe Industrial Compound
supplies various Reparo Road,
PETBOWE Trading Corporation products and services Potrero, Malabon,
for the food, personal Philippines
care, home care,
pharmaceutical
manufacturing and
agricultural industry.
Red Mountain Mining

Red Mountain Mining
is primarily a gold
explorer and project Unit 1 2 Richardson
acquisition company St West Perth 6005,
incorporated in Mindoro, Philippines
Australia in May
2006. The Company's
166
strategy is to unlock
the potential of under-
developed gold and
poly-metallic projects
in the greater Asian
region by introducing
Australian mining
methods and
improving efficiencies
to gain significant
production and
exploration upside.
J.S. Ventures, Inc.
JS Ventures
operates as a multi-
unit Applebee's
Jasmine Gandionco
Neighborhood Grill &
Sarmiento Lot 6 Blk
Bar franchisee. It
15, Scions Elite,
offers food and
Kausawagan,
beverage items. The
Philippines
company was
incorporated in 1989
and is based in
Wichita, Kansas.
167
Possible Competitors
Table 2.106 List of Possible Competitors
Product and
Company Name Company Profile Product Address
Description
 Category Activities:
Industrial Services
Dyno-Nobel Philippines and Equipment
Incorporated  Ammonium
 Brands: Chemicals Nitrate San Juan,
 Prills Metro
 Area: Manila manufactured Manila San
 from Juan, NCR
 Industry: Industrial ammonia and
Services and nitric acid
Equipment which has a
purity of 97-
99%.
TRADERS
 ROOM 315,
 Product List: Sales Ammonium 3/F
Henly-Jerome
 Category Activities: Nitrate Republic
Industrial Sales
Chemicals Prills Supermarket
 Area: Manila manufactured Building
 Industry: Chemicals from Rizal
ammonia and Avenue
nitric acid Santa Cruz
which has a 1000
168
purity of 97- Manila,

99%. Philippines
 Belman Laboratories
is a leading
manufacturer, Ammonium Belman
Belman Laboratories importer, and Nitrate Buiding, 78
distributor Prills Cordillera
of laboratory manufactured Street
chemicals and from corner
glassware, animal ammonia and Quezon
healthcare products, nitric acid Avenue,
as well as personal which has a Quezon
healthcare products purity of 97- City, 1113
99%. Metro
Manila
Marketing Strategies
For a corporation to last, it is essential to have an excellent marketing strategy.
A marketing strategy is a process that allows an organization to utilize its resources on
the maximum opportunities with the goal of increasing sales and attaining a
sustainable competitive advantage as defined by David Aaker. The marketing strategies
will allow the corporation to surpass its competitors and to excel in its field.
3 C’s Strategic Model
 The Clients
 The Competitors
 The Corporation
169
The 3C’s model reiterates that a planner should focus on three key factors for
success. In the creation of a business strategy, three main players must be taken into
consideration. Only by incorporating these three, a sustained competitive advantage can
exist. These key factors refer as the three C’s or strategic triangle.
In stiff competition, competitors are likely to be dividing the market in similar
ways. Over an extended period of time, the efficacy of a given initial strategic division
will tend to decline. The division is done in terms of the different ways that various
customers use a product. In such situations, it is convenient to pick a small group of
customers and re-examine what are their needs. In the long run, a company that is
genuinely interested in its customers will be interesting for its investors and take care
of their interests automatically.
There are certain needs that arise from the customer end. They include core
benefit or service and expected product. Recognizing this need the corporation or
company offers a basic product. To cater to their expectations and also to differentiate
from competitors who tend to morph their products, corporations offer augmented
products. Also, both the corporation and the competitors eventually tap the existence of
potential products.
3 C’s Sustainability Model
 Capability
 Consistency
 Competency
The rationale behind 3 C's sustainability model revolves around the idea of
shared value to the firm, the environment, and the community. AMNIPRILL
Corporation will ensure that it is capable of generating quality products using efficient
process. It will continue to do so until it become one of the leading manufacturers of
magnesium oxide not only in the Philippines but also all throughout the world. Also,
AMNIPRILL Corporation will continue to nurture its workers/ employees for their
continuous improvement and growth as an individual.
170
Promoting the Product

Advertisement, sale promotions and public relations are among the tools that the
corporation will use since these are the most effective tools in creating a long-term
image brand of a company.
The corporation will be publishing its own website and link it to social
networking sites such as Facebook and twitter. With this, people and companies will
get to know more about the product. The website will contain all information that the
consumers must know about the product including its MSDS, price, where it is use and
the like.
The corporation will also do sampling in potential clients such as Atlas Fertilizer
Corp and SBS Corp to encourage them to use it.
People
To guarantee the quality of a product and its affordability, AMNIPRILL
Corporation’s employees must be the best in what they do. In line with this, each
employee will undergo series of training such as skills enhancement and personality
development.
Packaging of Products
Packaging of AMNIPRILL Corporation’s product is very crucial for the
corporation. Since the product needs to be entirely secured from the ingress of water or
moisture, HDPE will be used. This is to avoid build-up of moisture inside the packaging
and protect the product from such.
171

05 Market Feasibility Study Sample

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

05 Market Feasibility Study Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technological Institute of the Philippines

AMNIPRILL Corporation will produce the Low-Density prilled Ammonium

Because of the latest technological advancements, online stores are now

Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Nitrate is used mainly in food and agriculture industry as a fertilizer.

Ammonium Nitrate used in the production of Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

Nitrous Oxide or laughing gas is a chemical compound commonly used in

NH4NO3 (s) → 2 H2O (g) + N2O (g)

Ammonium Nitrate in Double Salts and Mixtures of Calcium Nitrate and

Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate from Calcium Carbonate

Total Demand of Ammonium Nitrate

Table 2.5. Total Demand of Ammonium Nitrate

HISTORICAL DEMAND OF AMMONIUM NITRATE

60,000.00 HISTORICAL DEMAND OF

Figure 2.1. Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate demand

Average Annual Increase

(𝑌 − 𝑌𝑐)2 = (68431.4251 − 68,578.15)2

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Figure 2.2. Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate demand

Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method (AGCM)

Table 2.8. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Figure 2.3. Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate demand

Statistical Straight Line Method (SSLM)

Table 2.10. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

10(5987893) − (66x 933,113.81)

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Ammonium Nitrate Projected Demand

Figure 2.4. Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate demand

Statistical Parabolic Projection Method (SPPM)

Table 2.13. SPPM Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Table 2.14. Continuation for SPM Analysis Ammonium Nitrate Demand

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Ammonium Nitrate Projected Demand

Figure 2.5 Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate demand

Choosing Projected Demand

Historical Demand for Ammonium Nitrate

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): Single Factor

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Comparison of the Four Methods

Projected Demand for Ammonium Nitrate

Figure 2.7 Graphical Representation of Projected demand of Ammonium Nitrate

Statistical Straight Line vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

Arithmetic Geometric Curve vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

Ammonium Nitrate Projected Demand

Figure 2.8 Graphical Representation on the Projected Ammonium Nitrate Demand

Historical Supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Historical Supply of Ammonoium Nitrate

Ammonium Nitrate (TONS)

Figure 2.9 Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate Supply

Arithmetic Straight Line Method

Table 2.22. ASLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Supply

Average Annual Increase

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Year A (-) Yc (A+Yi+1)

2016 1,734.13 49,768.63

Projected Supply of Ammonm Nitrate (ASLM)

Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method

Table 2.24. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Projected Supply of Ammonm Nitrate (AGCM)

49000 Projected Supply of

Statistical Straight Line Method

Table 2.26. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

10(2564019) − (66 x 396,502.75)

Table 2.27 Continuation for SSLM analysis