Sigh... I have a pen, anyone have an envelope?
So the company's annual revenue should be in the ballpark of $65 M/yr.
The estimated cost to build the thing is $750M, and their estimated payback period is 11 years. That doesn't quite jive with the numbers I've come up with, and doesn't take into account net-present-value calculations, financing costs, operating expenses, etc. But, even so, you should certainly be able to pay for the thing over its many-decades-long lifetime.
If I had to guess, it's that they're adjusting the revenue (That 65M/yr) for inflation because it's not all going to be in today's money, but not the $750m, since that's going to be spent relatively quickly. This is entirely a guess - I don't know how businesses usually account for this - but it would close up the logical gap you're pointing out, without requiring fancy stuff.
Hopefully now we'll get to see some real patent reform; honestly, I'm not sure why this hasn't come up already. The popular political topic right now is 'Obamacare' and how it 'creates uncertainty' and that is a horrible thing for business; understandable in a way, as they set aside money for the worst-case scenario whenever possible.
So, assuming along those same lines, I wonder what their patent costs are? I know I've heard before that tech companies set aside a 'patent licensing fund' when they can to deal with patent trolls; if they could get rid of the need for that, or at least substantially lessen that, it'd be great for business, right? And everyone HATES a patent troll, right? C'mon, someone take this ball already and dunk it. The only people who hate it are easily turned into villains for the camera. They're leeches profiting off of GOOD Ol" FASHIONED AMERICAN INGENUITY.
The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin