5market Feasibility Study

MARKET
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
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.
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.
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)
Year Net Weight
(tons)
2005 44,540.85
2006 46,366.30
2007 49,311.90
2008 52,707.80
2009 56,034.10
2010 59,923.90
2011 58,178.50
2012 59,254.30
2013 60,332.35
2014 61,409.40
2015 62,486.80
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 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.
Table 2.2. Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate used in the Production of

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Philippines)
Year Net Weight
(tons)
2005 20,129.34
2006 22,043.06
2007 23,967.31
2008 23,668.12
2009 29,522.02
2010 31,497.21
2011 31,627.67
2012 32,863.43
2013 33,821.54
2014 35,948.70
2015 36,318.33
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.
The succeeding table 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)
Year Net Weight
(tons)
2005 663.74532
2006 690.06721
2007 696.12907
2008 712.88956
2009 730.32891
2010 780.33534
2011 789.44211
2012 839.06322
2013 845.6779
2014 856.34023
2015 874.63
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.
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)
Year Net Weight
(tons)
2005 9692.37923
2006 10332.64211
2007 10877.36278
2008 11002.78221
2009 11497.54664
2010 11979.23156
2011 12592.13172
2012 13672.98107
2013 13901.00391
2014 14003.48722
2015 14227.74615
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.
Table 2.5. Total Demand of Ammonium Nitrate
Philippines)
Year Net Weight
(tons)
2005 74,382.69857000
2006 78,764.04517000
2007 84,180.54009000
2008 87,402.37033000
2009 97,083.18866000
2010 103,431.83877000
2011 102,429.92939000
2012 105,823.57450000
2013 108,088.71545000
2014 111,397.53592000
2015 113,907.50615000
.
Figure 2.1. Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate demand

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:
Y n−Y c
a=
N−1
Yc = initial value (1st year)
Yn = final value (last year)
N = number of years
Yi = value for the year past
Table 2.6. ASLM Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Demand

Year Net Weight Yc (Y-Yc)2
(kg)
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 73,545,777.03
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

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√72817527.88
10
σ =¿853.332
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
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 2.4. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Yea Net Weight Annual % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
r (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
r=
∑ Average % = 44.776421 /100
N −1 10−1
r =¿0.049751579
Yi+1 (64392.01 )
Yc= =
( 1+ r ) 1.049751579
Yc=61340.23
σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =2245.8401
Projected Values
Table 2.5. 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

demand using AGCM
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:
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
n ∑ XY −∑ X ∑ Y
b=
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
2
Table 2.6. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Yea Net Weight (kg) X X2 XY
r
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= 2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
10 ( 5987893 )−( 66 x 933,113.81 )

b= 2
10 ( 506 )−( 66 )
b=¿-2424.124316
a=
933,113.81
10
−(−2424.124316 )
66
10( )
a=¿109310.6013
Table 2.7. Continuation for SSLM analysis

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=a+ bx
Yc=109310.6+ (−2424.12 )( 1 )
Yc=¿106886.5

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=√
5,087,166,387.166670
10
σ =7132.437
Projected Values
Table 2.8. 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
Figure 2.4. Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate demand
using SSLM
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:
2
Yc=a+ bx+ cx
Where:
a=¿ ¿
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
c=n¿ ¿
Table 2.9. SPM Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Yea Net Weight X X2 X4 XY X2Y
r (kg)
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
a=¿ ¿
( 33979 )( 933,113.81 )−( 451 ) (35854376 )

a= 2
(9) ( 33979 )−(451)
a=¿151703.4519
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
−154694
b=
451
b=¿-343.002089
c=n¿ ¿
( 9 )( 35854376 )−( 451¿ )( 933113.81 )
c=
( 9 ) (33979 )−( 451 )2
c=¿-958.3531242
Table 2.10. Continuation for SPM Analysis 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

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=√
5.1754E+10
10
σ =22749.51
Projected Values
Table 2.11. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate demand using SPM
Year X A b C Yc
(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
demand using SPPM
Table 2.12. Summary of Standard Deviation

Arithmetic Straight Line Method 857.5883455
Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method 2410.195895
Statistical Straight Line Method 8154.639
Statistical Parabolic Method 25845.45
Choosing Projected Demand

Table 2.13. Summary of Ammonium Nitrate demand using each method
Year Arithmetic Arithmetic Statistical Statistical
Straight Line Geometric Straight Line Parabolic
Method Curve 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
Figure 2.6 Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate demand using the

four methods
Table 2.14. Summary of Projected Ammonium Nitrate Demand Using Each
Method
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
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.
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 2.15. 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
Figure 2.8 Graphical Representation on the Projected Ammonium Nitrate

Demand using ASL
Historical Supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Table 2.16. Historical supply of Ammonium Nitrate
*(From Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics Database: Philippines.
(2005-2015))
Year Net Weight (kg)
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
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:
Y n−Y c
a=
N−1
N = number of years
Table 2.17. ASLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Supply

Year Net Weight A (-) Yc (Y-Yc)2
(kg)
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
Yc=¿34,161.48
( Y −Yc )2=58231058.75

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=√
132622973.9
10
σ =¿1151.620484
Projected Values

Table 2.18. 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
Figure
Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method

Formula:
Yi+1
Yc=
X
Where:
Table 2.19. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Year Net Weight % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
(kg)
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
r=
∑ Average % = 4.6053631 /100
N −1 10−1
r =¿0.00511707
Yi+1 ( 45877.89 )
Yc= =
1+r (1. 00511707)
Yc=¿45,644.31967
σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=√
1611121892
10
σ =¿4013.87829
Projected Values
Table 2.20 Yea Yi-1 Yc Projected values for
Ammonium Nitrate r Supply using AGCM
201 48280.2959
6 48,034.50 1
201 48280.2959 48527.3495
7 1 7
201 48527.3495 48775.6674
8 7 2
201 48775.6674 49025.2559
9 2 3
202 49025.2559
0 3 49276.1216
202 49528.2709
1 49276.1216 7
202 49528.2709 49781.7106
2 7 1
202 49781.7106 50036.4471
3 1 1
202 50036.4471 50292.4871
4 1 2
202 50292.4871
5 2 50549.8373
202 50808.5043
6 50549.8373 7
Figure 2.10. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using AGCM
Statistical Straight Line Method
Formula:
Yc=a+ bx
Where:
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
n ∑ XY −∑ X ∑ Y
b=
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
2
Table 2.21. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Year Net Weight (kg) 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= 2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
10 ( 2564019 )−(66 x 396,502.75)
b= 2
10 ( 506 )−( 66 )
b=¿-751.4098011
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
396,502.75 66
a= −(−751.4098011)( )
10 10
a=¿44609.57969
Table 2.22 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=a+ bx
Yc=44609.58+ (−751.41 ) (1 )
Yc=¿43858.17

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√ 935,122,340.623893
10
σ =¿3057.977
Projected Values
Table 2.23 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
Figure 2.11. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using SSLM
Statistical Parabolic Method
Formula:
2
Yc=a+ bx+ cx
Where:
a=¿ ¿
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
c=n¿ ¿
Table 2.24 SPCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Year Net Weight X X2 X4 XY X2Y
(kg)
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
a=¿ ¿
( 33979 )( 396,502.75 )−( 451 ) (16105793)
a= 2
(9) ( 33979 )−(451)
a=¿60629.37439
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
−26497.9
b=
451
b=¿-58.7537694
c=n¿ ¿
( 9 )( 16105793 ) −( 451¿ ) ( 396,502.75 )

c=
( 9 ) ( 33979 )−( 451 )2
c=¿-330.7352983
Table 2.25 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

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√7.14E+09
10
σ =¿8449.151
Projected Values
Table 2.26 Projected values for the supply of Ammonium Nitrate using SPCM
Year X a b C Yc (a+bX+cX2)
2016 13 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 3971.31
2017 14 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 5017.297
2018 15 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 14667.37
2019 16 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 24978.92
2020 17 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 35951.94
2021 18 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 47586.43
2022 19 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 59882.39
2023 20 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 72839.82
2024 21 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 86458.72
2025 22 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 100739.1
2026 23 60629.37 -58.7538 -330.735 115680.9
Figure 2.12. Projected values for Ammonium Nitrate supply using SPCM
Table 2.27 Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using each
method
Statistical Parabolic Curve Method 8449.151
Choosing Projected Supply

Table 2.28 Summary of Ammonium Nitrate supply using each method
Straight Geometric Straight Line Parabolic Curve
Line Curve Method 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
Figure 2.13. Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate supply using the
four methods
Table 2.29 Summary of projected supply of Ammonium Nitrate using each

method
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
180,000.00
160,000.00
140,000.00
120,000.00
100,000.00
80,000.00 ASLM
SUPPLY (TONS)
60,000.00 AGCM
SSLM
40,000.00 SPCM
20,000.00
0.00
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
YEARS
Figure 2.14. Graphical Representation of projected supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Comparison of the Four Methods
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 2.30 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
Figure 2.15. Graphical representation on the projected supply of Ammonium
Nitrate
Table 2.31. Difference of historical demand and supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Year Demand, kg Supply, kg
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
Figure 2.16 Graphical representations of the differences of Historical Demand
and Supply for Ammonium Nitrate
Table 2.32. 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
Figure 2.17. Graphical Representation of the Difference of the Projected
Demand and Supply for Ammonium Nitrate
Table 2.33 shows the amount of unsatisfied demand for Ammonium

Nitrate. Thus, the need to Ammonium Nitrate manufacturing plant is satisfied.
Market Share
Table 2.33 Basis for market share projection
Year Demand, tons Supply, tons 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: 25 % for the year 2019
Plant capacity = Projected demand in the initial production year x 0.25%
Plant capacity = 19,125.77 tons
In the Philippines, there is only one manufacturing firm currently
producing ammonium nitrate and the others are just traders. Hence, AMNIPRILL
Corporation sets a market share of 25% from the start of production year
continuously increasing until it reaches the target share of 32% on the tenth year
Rated Plant Capacity

Table 2.34. Production plan schedule for Ammonium Nitrate
Year Demand, % Annual Daily
Tons Market Production, Tons Production,
Share Tons
2016 118,299.15 0 0 0
2017 122,690.80 0 0 0
2018 127,082.44 0 0 0
2019 131,474.09 25 19125.77 52.83362
2020 135,865.73 26 20581.75 56.85567
2021 140,257.38 27 22090.89 61.02456
2022 144,649.02 28 23653.18 65.34027
2023 149,040.67 29 25268.61 69.8028
2024 153,432.31 30 26937.2 74.41215
2025 157,823.96 31 28658.94 79.16833
2026 162,215.60 32 30433.82 84.07133
The production will run continuously in 362 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.
It would be uneconomical to have a shutdown twice a year. At the end of 2026,
expansion for increasing the plant capacity will be constructed. The expansion
would be dependent on the projected demand from that year onwards. After the
first expansion, the next would be made after five years in order to lessen the
cost.
Table 2.34.1. Revenue Calculations based on the Projected Demands per year
The revenue calculation shown above is based on the projected annual

unsatisfied demand taking into account 25% as initial market share with an
increase of 1% for the succeeding years. The projected revenue in the year 2019
totaled to $6,694,019.50 or PHP334, 700,975.00. It is expected to generate a
revenue of $10,651,837.28 or PHP532, 591,864 in the year 2026.
Raw Material (Ammonia Gas)
Table 2.35 Historical Demand of Ammonia (From Food and Agriculture
Organization Statistics Database: Philippines. (2005-2015))
Year Net Weight (tons)
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:
Y n−Y c
a=
N−1
N = number of years
Table 2.36 ASLM Analysis for Ammonia Demand
(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

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√ 91759197.60
10
σ =957.91
Projected Values
Table 2.37 Projected values for Ammonia using ASLM
Year A Yc (A+Yi+1)
3851.77777
2016 8 72,351.78
3851.77777
2017 8 76,203.56
3851.77777
2018 8 80,055.33
3851.77777
2019 8 83,907.11
3851.77777
2020 8 87,758.89
3851.77777
2021 8 91,610.67
3851.77777
2022 8 95,462.44
3851.77777
2023 8 99,314.22
3851.77777
2024 8 103,166.00
3851.77777
2025 8 107,017.78
3851.77777
2026 8 110,869.56

Formula:
Yi+1
Yc=
X
Where:
Table 2.38. AGCM analysis for Ammonia

Year Net Weight (kg) Yi + 1 % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
200
33,834
5 0 0 63040.58 853024211.6
200
39,355
6 5,521.00 16.31 63566.34 586189125.1
200
39,974
7 619.00 1.57 64096.49 581894644.7
200
42,325
8 2,351.00 5.88 64631.06 497560473.9
200
44,438
9 2,113.00 4.99 65170.09 429819684
201
45,781
0 1,343.00 3.02 65713.62 397309265.7
201
45,853
1 72.00 0.15 66261.68 416514065.4
201
55,973
2 10,120.00 22.07 66814.31 117533898
201
59,763
3 3,790.00 6.77 67371.54 57889928.33
201
61,598
4 1,835.00 3.07 67933.43 40137653.87
201
68,500
5 6,902.00 11.20 0 0
average % 7.50 ∑ 3977872951
r=
∑ Average %
N −1
7.5060893
100
r=
10−1
r =¿0.008340099
σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√3977872951
10
σ =¿6307.038093
Projected Values
Table 2.39. 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
Year Net Weight (kg) X X2 XY
2025 73816.57943 74432.21703
2005
2026 33,834
74432.21703 1 1 75052.9891
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
Statistical2012 55,973
Straight Line Method 8 64 447784
Formula: 2013 59,763 9 81 537867
Yc=a+ bx2014 61,598 10 100 615980

Where: 2015 68,500 11 121 753500
a=
∑ Y −b∑∑ X 537,394.00 66 506 3574744
n n
n ∑ XY −∑ X ∑ Y n ∑ XY −∑ X ∑ Y
b= 2 b=
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
Table 10 ( 3574744
2.40 )−( 66 x 537,394.00
SSLM Analysis )
for Ammonia
b= 2
10 ( 506 )−66
b=¿396.9261364
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
537,394.00 66
a= −(396.9261364)( )
10 10
a=¿51119.6875
Table 2.41 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
Yc=51119.6875+ ( 396.9261 ) ( 1 )
Yc=¿51515.61
σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√1,170,071,579.313570
10
σ =¿3420.631
Projected Values
Table 2.42 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

Formula:
2
Yc=a+ bx+ cx
Where:
a=¿ ¿
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
c=n¿ ¿
Table 2.43. SPM Analysis for Ammonia

(kg)
121 1464
33,834
2005 -11 1 -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
∑ 451 3397
537,394.00 9 163366 21354730
a=¿ ¿
( 33979 )( 537,394.00 )−( 451 )( 21354730 )

a= 2
( 9) ( 33979 ) −( 451)
a=¿84260.59463
b=
∑ XY = 163366
∑ X 2 451
b=¿362.2305987
c=n¿ ¿
( 9 )( 21354730 ) −( 451 ) ( 537,394.00 )

c=
( 9 ) ( 33979 )−( 451 )2
c=¿-489.914305
Table 2.44. Continuation for SPM Analysis

A B C x Yc (Y-Yc)2
84260.5 - 20996.4
9 362.2306 489.914 -11 3 164803278
84260.5 - 41317.4
9 362.2306 489.914 -9 6 3851251.28
84260.5 - 57719.1
9 362.2306 489.914 -7 8 314891395
84260.5 - 70201.5
9 362.2306 489.914 -5 8 777103936
84260.5 - 78764.6
9 362.2306 489.914 -3 7 1178320554
84260.5 - 83408.4
9 362.2306 489.914 -1 5 1415824973
84260.5 - 84132.9
9 362.2306 489.914 1 1 1465351580
84260.5 - 80938.0
9 362.2306 489.914 3 6 623254105
84260.5 - 73823.8
σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√6569465842
10
σ =¿8105.224
Projected Values
Table 2.45 Projected values for Ammonia using SPM
Yea X a b c Yc (a+bX+cX2)
r
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 2.46. Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using

each method
Choosing Projected Demand (FOR AMMONIA)

Table 2.47. Summary of Ammonia demand using each method
Year Method
Arithmetic Arithmetic
Curve Statistical
Method Statistical
Curve Method
Straight Geometric
Method Straight Parabolic
2005 Line
- Curve
63040.58 Line
51516.61 Curve
20996.43
20062016 37,685.78
72,351.78 63566.34
69071.2968 51913.54
55882.8 41317.46
6174.075
20072017 43,206.78
76,203.56 64096.49
69647.35826 52310.47
56279.73 57719.18
6691.381
20082018 43,825.78
80,055.33 64631.06
70228.22414 52707.39
56676.65 70201.58
20536.67
20092019 46,176.78
83,907.11 65170.09
70813.93449 53104.32
57073.58 78764.67
35361.78
20102020 48,289.78
87,758.89 65713.62
71404.52973 53501.24
57470.51 83408.45
51166.72
20112021 49,632.78
91,610.67 66261.68
72000.05059 53898.17
57867.43 84132.91
67951.49
20122022 49,704.78
95,462.44 66814.31
72600.53816 54295.1
58264.36 80938.06
85716.09
20132023 59,824.78
99,314.22 67371.54
73206.03385 54692.02
58661.28 73823.89
104460.5
20142024 63,614.78
103,166.00 67933.43
73816.57943 55088.95
59058.21 62790.41
124184.8
20152025 65,449.78
107,017.78 -
74432.21703 55485.88
59455.14 47837.61
144888.9
2026 110,869.56 75052.9891 59852.06 166572.8
Figure 2.18 Graphical representation of Ammonia demand using the four

Figure 2.19 Graphical representation of Ammonia demand using the four
methods
methods
Table 2.48. Summary of Projected Ammonia Demand Using Each Method

Historical Supply of Ammonia
Table 2.49. Historical supply of Ammonia
(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
Figure 2.20 Graphical representation of Ammonia Supply
(2005-2015)
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.
Formula:
Yc=a+ Yi−1
Where:
Y n−Y c
a=
N−1
N = number of years
Table 2.50. ASLM analysis for Ammonia Supply

Yea Net Weight (ton) A (-) Yc (Y-Yc)2
r
2005 38,960 3688.333333 - -
42,648.3
2006 40,112
3688.333333 3 6432986.778
43,800.3
2007 42,344
3688.333333 3 2120906.778
46,032.3
2008 43,912
3688.333333 3 4495813.444
47,600.3
2009 45,956
3688.333333 3 2703832.111
49,644.3
2010 46,466
3688.333333 3 10101802.78
2011 46,933 3688.333333 50,154.3 10376988.44
3
50,621.3
2012 57,590
3688.333333 3 48562315.11
61,278.3
2013 60,365
3688.333333 3 834177.7778
64,053.3
2014 65,346
3688.333333 3 1670987.111
69,034.3
2015 72,155
3688.333333 3 9738560.444
∑ 97038370.78
72,155−38,960
a=
10−1
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

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿985.080559
Projected Values

Table 2.51. 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
Figure 2.21. Projected values for Ammonia supply using ASLM
Formula:
Yi+1
Yc=
X
Where:
Table 2.52. AGCM analysis for Ammonia supply

Yea Net Weight Annual % Yc (Y-Yc)2
r (kg) Increase increase
35855.8
2005 38,960
0 0 9 9635476.465
38453.0
2006 40,112
1,152.00 2.9568789 8 2752013.462
41238.3
2007 42,344
2,232.00 5.5644196 9 1222368.189
2008 43,912 1,568.00 3.703004 44225.4 98254.3575
6
47428.8
2009 45,956
2,044.00 4.6547641 8 2169386.291
50864.3
2010 46,466
510.00 1.1097572 5 19345474.31
54548.6
2011 46,933
467.00 1.0050359 6 57998262.58
58499.8
2012 57,590
10,657.00 22.706837 4 827806.0391
62737.2
2013 60,365
2,775.00 4.8185449 2 5627417.125
67281.5
2014 65,346
4,981.00 8.2514702 3 3746266.85
2015 72,155 6,809.00 10.419919 0 0
average % 65.190631 ∑ 103422725.7
r=
∑ Average % = 65.190631/100
N −1 10−1
r =¿0.072434034
Yc=Yi+1 / (1+ r )=( 38453.08 ) /(1. 072434034)

Yc=¿35855.89

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿1016.969644
Projected Values
Table 2.53 Projected values for Ammonia Supply using AGCM
Yea Yi-1 Yc
r
201 77381.4777
6 72,155.00 3
201 77381.4777 82986.5303
7 3 3
201 82986.5303
8 3 88997.5795
201 95444.0332
9 88997.5795 1
202 95444.0332 102357.429
0 1 6
202 102357.429 109771.591
1 6 1
202 109771.591 117722.790
2 1 3
202 117722.790 126249.926
3 3 9
202 126249.926 135394.718
4 9 4
202 135394.718 145201.904
5 4 1
202 145201.904 155719.463
6 1 8
Figure 2.22. Projected values for Ammonia supply using AGCM

Formula:
Yc=a+ bx
Where:
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
n ∑ XY −∑ X ∑ Y
b= 2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
Table 2.54. 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= 2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
10 ( 3710141 ) −(66 x 560,139.00)

b= 2
10 (506 )−( 66 )
b=¿187.8352273
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
560,139.00 66
a= −(187.8352273)( )
10 10
a=¿54774.1875
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
∑ 1,381,024,697.27379
0
Yc=54774.19+ ( 187.8352 ) ( 1 )
Yc=¿54962.02

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿3716.214
Projected Values
Table 2.56. 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
Figure 2.23. Projected values for Ammonia supply using SSLM

Formula:
2
Yc=a+ bx+ cx
Where:
a=¿ ¿
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
c=n¿ ¿
Table 2.57 SPCM analysis for Ammonia supply

Yea Net Weight (kg) X X2 X4 XY X2Y
r
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
a=¿ ¿
( 33979 )( 560,139.00 )−( 451 )(22716835)
a= 2
(9) ( 33979 )−(451)
a=¿85808.71493
b=
∑ XY = 138475
∑ X 2 451
b=¿ 307.0399113
c=n¿ ¿
( 9 )( 22716835 ) −( 451¿ ) ( 560,139.00 )

c=
( 9 ) ( 33979 )−( 451 )2
c=¿-470.375686

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

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿8287.394
Projected Values
Table 2.59. Projected values for the supply of Ammonia using SPCM
Yea X a b C Yc (a+bX+cX2)
r
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
Figure 2.24. Projected values for Ammonia supply using SPCM
method

Table 2.61 Summary of Ammonia supply using each 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
Figure 2.25. Graphical representation of Ammonia supply using the four

methods
Table 2.62 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
Figure 2.26. Graphical Representation of projected supply of Ammonia
Table 2.63. Difference of historical demand and supply of Ammonia using ASLM
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

and Supply for Ammonia
Table 2.64. Difference of projected demand and supply of Ammonia

2016 72,351.78 75,843.33
2017 76,203.56 79,531.67
2018 80,055.33 83,220.00
2019 83,907.11 86,908.33
2020 87,758.89 90,596.67
2021 91,610.67 94,285.00
2022 95,462.44 97,973.33
2023 99,314.22 101,661.67
2024 103,166.00 105,350.00
2025 107,017.78 109,038.33
2026 110,869.56 112,726.67
Figure 2.28. Graphical Representation of the Differences of the Projected

Demand and Supply for Ammonia
Raw Material (Nitric Acid)
Table 2.65. Historical Demand of Nitric Acid
*(From Foreign Trade Statistics of the Philippines (2005-2015))
Year Net Weight (tons)
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

Formula:
Yc=a+ Yi−1
Where:
Y n−Y c
a=
N−1
N = number of years
Table 2.66 ASLM Analysis for Nitric Acid Demand

(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
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

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=
√133534848.94
10
σ =¿1155.572797
Projected Values
Table 2.67 Projected values for Nitric Acid using ASLM
Year A Yc (A+Yi+1)
2910.22222
2016 2 67,957.22
2910.22222
2017 2 70,867.44
2910.22222
2018 2 73,777.67
2910.22222
2019 2 76,687.89
2910.22222
2020 2 79,598.11
2910.22222
2021 2 82,508.33
2910.22222
2022 2 85,418.56
2023 2910.22222 88,328.78
2
2910.22222
2024 2 91,239.00
2910.22222
2025 2 94,149.22
2910.22222
2026 2 97,059.44

Formula:
Yi+1
Yc=
X
Where:
Table 2.68. AGCM analysis for Nitric Acid

Year Net Weight (kg) Yi + 1 % increase Yc (Y-Yc)2
200
38,855
5 0 0 35734.41 9738089.904
200
39,325
6 5,521.00 1.2096255 37940.29 1917416.591
200
39,830
7 619.00 1.2841704 40282.34 204615.1616
200 42,405 2,351.00 6.4649761 42768.97 132474.9117
8
200
44,454
9 2,113.00 4.8319774 45409.1 912210.9255
201
45,756
0 1,343.00 2.9288703 48212.2 6032911.079
201
45,854
1 72.00 0.2141796 51188.33 28455129.36
201
58,972
2 10,120.00 28.608191 54348.19 21379636.08
201
59,754
3 3,790.00 1.326053 57703.1 4206195.291
201
61,512
4 1,835.00 2.9420625 61265.11 60955.59364
201
65,047
5 6,902.00 5.7468461 0 0
average % 55.556952 ∑ 73039634.9
55.556952
r=
∑ Average % = 100
N −1 10−1
r =¿0.061729947

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿854.6322888
Projected Values
Table 2.69. 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:
Yc=a+ bx
Where:
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
n ∑ XY −∑ X ∑ Y
b= 2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
Table 2.70 SSLM Analysis for Nitric Acid

Year Net Weight (kg) X X2 XY
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 x 541,764.00 )

b=
10 ( 506 )−66
b=¿-156.8806818
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
541,764.00 66
a= −(−156.8806818)( )
10 10
a=¿55211.8125
Table 2.71. 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
∑ 1,372,002,612.93288
0

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ=√
1,372,002,612.932880
10
σ =¿3704.055
Projected Values
Table 2.72 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:
2
Yc=a+ bx+ cx
Where:
a=¿ ¿
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
c=n¿ ¿
Table 2.73. SPM Analysis for Nitric Acid

(kg)
121 1464
38,855
2005 -11 1 -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
∑ 451 3397
537,394.00 9 86264 21697764
a=¿ ¿
( 33979 )( 541764 )−(451)(21697764)

a= 2
9 (33979 )−451
a=¿84199.85736
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
86264
b=
451
b=¿191.2727273
c=n¿ ¿
9 ( 21697764 )−(451)(541764)
c= 2
9 ( 33979 ) −451
c=¿-479.0126745
Table 2.74. Continuation for SPM Analysis
A B C x Yc (Y-Yc)2
84199.8 - 24135.3
6 191.2727 479.013 -11 2 216668869
84199.8 - 43678.3
6 191.2727 479.013 -9 8 18951884.1
84199.8 - 59389.3
6 191.2727 479.013 -7 3 382567281
84199.8 - 71268.1
6 191.2727 479.013 -5 8 833082978
84199.8 - 79314.9
6 191.2727 479.013 -3 3 1215284099
84199.8 - 83529.5
6 191.2727 479.013 -1 7 1426842738
84199.8 - 83912.1
6 191.2727 479.013 1 2 1448420301
84199.8 - 80462.5
6 191.2727 479.013 3 6 461844232
84199.8 -
6 191.2727 479.013 5 73180.9 180281755
84199.8 - 62067.1
6 191.2727 479.013 7 5 308186.411
84199.8 - 47121.2
6 191.2727 479.013 9 9 321331249
∑ 6505583573

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿8065.72
Projected Values
Table 2.75 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 2.76. Summary of obtained results for standard deviation using

each method
Arithmetic Geometric Curve 854.6322888
Method
Choosing Projected Demand

Table 2.77. Summary of Nitric Acid demand using each method
Method Curve 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
Figure 2.29 Graphical representation of Nitric Acid historical demand using the
four methods
Table 2.78. Summary of Projected Nitric Acid Demand Using Each Method
Year Arithmetic Arithmetic Statistical -Statistical
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
Figure 2.30 Graphical representation of Nitric Acid projected demand using the
four methods
Historical Supply of Nitric Acid

Table 2.79. Historical supply of Nitric Acid
(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
Figure 2.31 Graphical representation of Nitric Acid Supply

(2005-2015)
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.
Formula:
Yc=a+ Yi−1
Where:
Y n−Y c
a=
N−1
N = number of years
Table 2.80. ASLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Supply

Year Net Weight A (-) Yc (Y-Yc)2
(kg)
2005 40,853 2907.111111 - -
43,760.1
2006 40,956
2907.111111 1 7863039.123
43,863.1
2007 42,346
2907.111111 1 2301626.123
45,253.1
2008 48,956
2907.111111 1 13711386.12
51,863.1
2009 54,056
2907.111111 1 4808761.679
56,963.1
2010 55,460
2907.111111 1 2259343.012
58,367.1
2011 55,590
2907.111111 1 7712346.123
58,497.1
2012 59,565
2907.111111 1 1140386.679
62,472.1
2013 60,370
2907.111111 1 4418871.123
63,277.1
2014 62,392
2907.111111 1 783421.679
2015 67,017 2907.111111 65,299.1 2951142.235
1
∑ 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 , 85 3
Yc=¿43,760.11
( Y −Yc )2=7863039.123

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿692.4617
Projected Values

Table 2.81. 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
Figure 2.32. Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using ASLM
Formula:
Yi+1
Yc=
X
Where:
Table 2.82. AGCM analysis for Nitric Acid supply

Yea Net Weight Annual % Yc (Y-Yc)2
r (kg) Increase increase
38308.4
2005 40,853
0 0 7 6474608.736
40512.0
2006 40,956
103.00 0.2521235 2 197120.3337
42842.3
2007 42,346
1,390.00 3.3938861 1 246324.1992
45306.6
2008 48,956
6,610.00 15.609503 4 13317796.44
47912.7
2009 54,056
5,100.00 10.417518 3 37739776.25
50668.7
2010 55,460
1,404.00 2.5973065 2 22956376.71
53583.2
2011 55,590
130.00 0.2344032 4 4027103.684
2012 59,565 3,975.00 7.1505666 56665.4 8407689.631
59924.8
2013 60,370
805.00 1.3514648 5 198158.1717
63371.7
2014 62,392
2,022.00 3.3493457 9 959987.3781
2015 67,017 4,625.00 7.4128093 0 0
average % 51.768926 ∑ 94524941.53
r=
∑ Average % = 51.768926/100
N −1 10−1
r =¿0.057521029
Yc=Yi+1 / (1+ r )=( 40512.02 ) /¿057521029¿
Yc=38308.47

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
Yea Yi-1 Yc
r
σ =¿972.2393817
201 70871.8868
Projected Values
6 67,017.00 1
Table 2.83 Projected Nitric
201 70871.8868 74948.5106
Acid Supply using AGCM
7 1 7
201 74948.5106 79259.6261
8 7 3
201 79259.6261 83818.7213
9 3 9
202 83818.7213
0 9 88640.0605
202
1 88640.0605 93738.728
202 99130.6760
2 93738.728 9
202 99130.6760 104832.774
3 9 6
202 104832.774 110862.863
4 6 7
202 110862.863 117239.809
5 7 7
202 117239.809 123983.564
6 7 2
Figure 2.33. Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using AGCM

Formula:
Yc=a+ bx
Where:
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
n ∑ XY −∑ X ∑ Y
b= 2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
Table 2.84. 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= 2
n ∑ X 2−( ∑ X)
10 ( 3818754 )−(66 x 587,561.00)

b= 2
10 ( 506 )−( 66 )
b=¿-840.1789773
a=
∑ Y −b ∑ X
n n
587,561.00 66
a= −(−840.1789773)( )
10 10
a=64301.2 8
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
∑ 1,763,078,599.03649
0
Yc=64301.28+ (−840.179 )( 1 )
Yc=63461. 1

σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿4198.903
Projected Values
Table 2.86 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
Figure 2.34. Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using SSLM

Formula:
2
Yc=a+ bx+ cx
Where:
a=¿ ¿
b=
∑ XY
∑ X2
c=n¿ ¿
Table 2.104 SPCM analysis for Nitric Acid supply

(kg)
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
a=¿ ¿
( 33979 )( 587,561.00 )−( 451 )(22687977)
a= 2
(9) ( 33979 )−(451)
a=¿95034.25048
b=
∑ XY =−785
∑ X 2 451
b=¿-1.740576497
c=n¿ ¿
( 9 )( 22687977 )−( 451¿ )( 587,561.00 )
c=
( 9 ) ( 33979 )−( 451 )2
c=¿-593.6746216

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
σ =√ ∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =¿8885.76
Projected Values
Table 2.106 Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using SPCM
Year X a b C -Yc
(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
Figure 2.33. Projected values for Nitric Acid supply using SPCM
method

Table 2.108 Summary of Nitric Acid supply using each 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
Figure 2.34. Graphical representation of Nitric Acid Supply using the four
methods
Table 2.109 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 2.35. Graphical Representation of Projected Nitric Acid Supply
Table 2.110. Difference of historical demand and supply of Nitric Acid using
AGCM
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 - -

and Supply for Nitric Acid using AGCM
Table 2.111. Difference of projected demand and supply of Nitric Acid
using AGCM
2016 69062.3479 70871.88681
2017 73325.5629 74948.51067
2018 77851.946 79259.62613
2019 82657.7425 83818.72139
2020 87760.2005 88640.0605
2021 93177.6331 93738.728
2022 98929.4834 99130.67609
2023 105036.395 104832.7746
2024 111520.286 110862.8637
2025 118404.428 117239.8097
2026 125713.527 123983.5642
Figure 2.37. Graphical Representation of the Differences of the Projected
Demand and Supply for Nitric Acid
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 surgery and dentistry, and
used as a propellant for drugs packaged in aerosols (YARA, Retrieved: Dec,
2017)
List of Possible Clients

Table 2.112. List of Possible Clients
Comapany Name Company Profile Address

Atlas Fertilizer Corporation (AFC) Atlas Fertilizer 2/Flr. Builders
Corporation (AFC), Center Bldg.
incorporated on 170 Salcedo
October 10, 1957, is Street, Legazpi
the oldest operating Village
and the first Makati City,
fertilizer company Metro Manila
in the Philippines to Philippines 1229
achieve full scale
manufacturing of a
complete line of
mixed fertilizer
grades, alternatively
known as compound
inorganic fertilizer
and more famously
called by our
farmers as the NP-
NPK- NK fertilizers.
Norsk Hydro (Philippines) Inc. Norsk Hydro ASA Unit 1404, Antel
(Hydro) is an 2000, 121 Valero
integrated aluminum Street, Salcedo
company with Village, Makati
operations in City, Manila,
various activities Philippines.
along the aluminum
industry's value
chain. The Company
operates through six
segments: Bauxite
& Alumina, which
includes bauxite
mining activities,
production of
alumina and related
commercial
activities, primarily
the sale of alumina;
Primary Metal,
which includes
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
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.
Sytengco Inc. The Company offers 10 Resthaven St.,
a comprehensive SFDM, Quezon
selection of City, Metro
chemical products to Manila,
service the Philippines
following industries:
food ingredients,
industrial,
agribusiness, feeds
and veterinary care,
pharmaceutical,
personal care and
cosmetics. It also
provides value-
added service to its
customers by
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 Philippines, Inc. Dyno Nobel Admin Bldg,
provides customer Bacong, Negros
solutions through Oriental
our people, our
products, and our
services. Our
blasters are among
the most highly
trained in the
industry. Dyno
Nobel provides a
full range of reliable
explosives 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.
PETBOWE Trading Corporation As a supply chain Lot 6, RDC
partner, Petbowe Industrial
supplies various Compound Reparo
products and Road,
services for the Potrero, Malabon,
food, personal care, Philippines
home care,
pharmaceutical
manufacturing and
agricultural
industry.
Red Mountain Mining Red Mountain Unit 1 2
Mining is primarily Richardson St
a gold explorer and West Perth 6005,
project acquisition Mindoro,
company Philippines
incorporated in
Australia in May
2006. The
Company's 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.
JS Ventures J.S. Ventures, Inc. Jasmine
operates as a multi- Gandionco
unit Applebee's Sarmiento Lot 6
Neighborhood Grill Blk 15, Scions
& Bar franchisee. It Elite,
offers food and Kausawagan,
beverage items. The Philippines
company was
incorporated in 1989
and is based in
Wichita, Kansas.
Possible Competitors
Table 2.113 List of Possible Competitors
Company Name Company Profile Product and Address
Product
Description
Category
Activities:
Dyno-Nobel Philippines Industrial Services
Incorporated and Equipment Ammonium
Nitrate San Juan,
Brands: Chemicals Prills Metro
manufacture Manila San
Area: Manila d from Juan, NCR
ammonia
Industry: Industrial and nitric
Services and acid which
Equipment has a purity
of 97-99%.
TRADERS
H ROOM
Product List: Sales Ammonium 315, 3/F
Henly-Jerome Industrial
Category Nitrate Republic
Sales
Activities: Prills Supermarke
Chemicals manufacture t Building
Area: Manila d from Rizal
Industry: Chemical ammonia Avenue
s and nitric Santa Cruz
acid which 1000
has a purity Manila,
of 97-99%. Philippines
Belman
Laboratories is a
leading
Belman Laboratories manufacturer, Ammonium Belman
importer, and Nitrate Buiding, 78
distributor Prills Cordillera
of laboratory manufacture Street
chemicals and d from corner
glassware, animal ammonia Quezon
healthcare products, and nitric Avenue,
as well as personal acid which Quezon
healthcare products has a purity City, 1113
of 97-99%. 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
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.
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.

5market Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

5market Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARKET

The Philippines has a growing demand for ammonium nitrate as reflected

AMNIPRILL Corporation will produce the Low-Density prilled

The AMNIPRILL Corporation sustains the needs of the Philippines for

Because of the latest technological advancements, online stores are now

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

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)

Table 2.2. Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate used in the Production of

Ammonium Nitrate in Double Salts and Mixtures of Calcium Nitrate and

The succeeding table shows the historical demand of Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate from Calcium

The table below shows the historical demand of Ammonium Nitrate in

Table 2.4. Historical Demand of Ammonium Nitrate in Mixtures of Ammonium

Figure 2.1. Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate demand

Table 2.6. ASLM Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Demand

Average Annual Increase

( Y −Yc )2= (68431.4251−68,578.15 )2

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method (AGCM)

Table 2.4. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

Figure 2.3. Graphical representation of the projected Ammonium Nitrate

Statistical Straight Line Method (SSLM)

Table 2.6. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

10 ( 5987893 )−( 66 x 933,113.81 )

Table 2.7. Continuation for SSLM analysis

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Statistical Parabolic Projection Method (SPPM)

Table 2.9. SPM Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate

( 33979 )( 933,113.81 )−( 451 ) (35854376 )

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Table 2.12. Summary of Standard Deviation

Choosing Projected Demand

Figure 2.6 Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate demand using the

Figure 2.7 Graphical Representation of Projected demand of Ammonium Nitrate

Statistical Straight Line vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

Statistical Parabolic Projection vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

Figure 2.8 Graphical Representation on the Projected Ammonium Nitrate

Historical Supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Figure 2.9 Graphical representation of Ammonium Nitrate Supply

Table 2.17. ASLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Supply

Average Annual Increase

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Arithmetic Straight Line Method

Arithmetic Geometric Curve Method

Table 2.19. AGCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Table 2.21. SSLM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

Table 2.22 Continuation for SSLM analysis

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Table 2.24 SPCM analysis for Ammonium Nitrate supply

( 9 )( 16105793 ) −( 451¿ ) ( 396,502.75 )

Evaluation for Standard Deviation

Choosing Projected Supply

Table 2.29 Summary of projected supply of Ammonium Nitrate using each

Figure 2.14. Graphical Representation of projected supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Statistical Straight Line vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

Statistical Parabolic Curve vs. Arithmetic Straight Line

Table 2.31. Difference of historical demand and supply of Ammonium Nitrate

Table 2.32. Difference of projected demand and supply of Ammonium

Table 2.33 shows the amount of unsatisfied demand for Ammonium

Target Market Share

Rated Plant Capacity