Tuva Institute of Integrated Development of Natural Resources, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kyzyl, Russia:

D. F. Dabiev, Head of Laboratory, Candidate of Economic Sciences, daviddabiev@yahoo.com

In order to determine the most effective energy supply option for the development of the Chineisky titanium–magnetite deposit, preliminary calculations of five energy supply options have been performed. In view of the remoteness of the object from the energy infrastructure of the TRANS-Baikal territory, an economic assessment of the following options for the power supply of the Magnitny site was made: external power supply; construction of thermal power plants based on coking coal from the Apsat deposit; combined power supply, which uses wind power stations (WPS) plus diesel power, electricity production by a unified reactor plant; combination energy supply from wind power stations and based on coking coal from the Apsat deposit. The options were compared by the criteria of capital cost, operating costs and the present discounted value of revenues. The results of the assessment of different energy supply options indicate that alternative energy sources can be used for the energy supply of the mineral mining projects along with traditional ones.
The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Project No. 15-46-04-125.

1. Sector of minerals and raw materials in the Asian Russia: How to provide socio-economic efficiency? Ed.: V. V. Kuleshov. Novosibirsk : IEOPP SO RAN. 2015. 352 p.
2. About the state and use of mineral and raw materials resource in Russian Federation in 2015: State Report. Moscow. 2016. 341 p.
3. Transportation of iron ore and ferrous metals by railroad transport (based on materials of the Russian Railways press department). Chernye metally. 2017. No. 12. pp. 74–75.
4. Ponomarev V. A. Link. Ekspert-Sibir. 2013. No. 7. pp. 24–27.
5. Kryukov V. A. Unsolvable… Solved Problems? Problems of Economic Transition. 2016. Vol. 58, No. 6. pp. 483–486.
6. The Russian economy inches forward: Will that suffice to turn the tide? : Russia Economic Report. The World Bank. 2016. No. 36. 38 p.
7. Oxenstierna S. Russia’s defense spending and the economic decline. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2016. Vol. 7, Iss. 1. pp. 60–70.
8. Iwasaki I., Maurel M., Meunier B. Firm entry and exit during a crisis period: Evidence from Russian regions. Russian Journal of Economics. 2016. Vol. 2, Iss. 2. pp. 162–191.
9. Fortescue S. Russia’s economic prospects in the Asia Pacific Region. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2016. Vol. 7, Iss. 1. pp. 49–59.
10. Ershova N. Investment climate in Russia and challenges for foreign business: The case of Japanese companies. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2017. Vol. 8, Iss. 2. pp. 151–160.
11. Expert opinion on the technology and cost audit of the investment project “PS 500 kW Ust-Kut with inlets VL 500 kW and VL 200 kW”. Moscow, 2014. 177 p.
12. Borisenko L. F., Delitsyn L. M. Polubabkin V. A., Uskov E. D. Laboratory and production research of minerals: integrated utilization of titanium–magnetite ore. Moscow : Geoinformmark. 1997. Vol. 2. 65 p.
13. Samsonov N. The great 12. Ekspert-Sibir. 2011. No. 35. pp. 42–45.
14. Yagolnitser M. A., Churashev V. N., Razbegin V. N. Kodar–Udokan mineral and raw materials base: Efficient development potential. Metallurgy of Nonferrous and Rare Metals: Proceedings of II In ternational Scientific and Practical Conference. Krasnoyarsk : IKhKhT SO RAN. 2003. Vol. 1. pp. 87–88.