What do you make of Fawn’s concern about “flexibility”? Can we deal with that analytically and, if so, what is its effect on the value of the Merseyside project? What about on the Rotterdam project?

Fawn’s concern about “flexibility” refers to the ability of a project to adapt to changes in technology or market conditions. Analytically speaking, this can be viewed as an option value – the value of being able to change course if needed. The effect of flexibility on the value of the Merseyside and Rotterdam projects will depend on the specific circumstances of each project. If the technology used in a project becomes obsolete or the market conditions change significantly, the ability to switch to a different technology can increase the value of the project. However, the option to change technologies also has a cost – it requires additional investments in research and development, as well as the potential for delays if a new technology needs to be developed. Ultimately, the value of flexibility will depend on the likelihood and magnitude of changes in technology or market conditions.

Should Fawn be swayed by Eustace’s rhetoric?

Fawn should not be swayed by Eustace’s rhetoric. Eustace’s behavior displays classic games used to influence the resource-allocation process, such as framing, anchoring, and selective presentation of information. These games tend to obstruct rather than improve the decision-making process, and Fawn should focus on making a rational decision based on the available information and analysis such as the expected returns, risks, and feasibility of each project.