The valuation of investment opportunities is undoubtedly a topic of great interest as it is the manner by which firms guide their investment decisions and assess whether this or that project creates or not value. The valuation theory of productive investments starts its way on the Net Present Value Rule (NPV) and branches along its literature, pursuing always the goal of incorporating the uncertainty into the models. The current stage of this path is the valuation of real options, and so everything that precedes it is now called classical theory. Nevertheless, many problems in the approaches found in literature for assessing real options are old. As the analogy with financial options is common, the proposed methodology for pricing real options bases itself in the financial options models. But this methodological extension is in itself problematic, as the so-called real assets and financial assets retain important differences between themselves such as private risk, completeness of markets, differences in liquidity, reversibility and a dramatic difference in the levels of information asymmetry. These differences undermine the significance of the valuation’s final results, as they violate some of the assumptions behind the pricing theory of financial options. As well as that, only the market component of risk is considered in the assessment, leaving private risk unattended. Other approaches for pricing real options have emerged in order to tackle the problem of market incompleteness, but are not able to prevent other issues already discussed in the classical theory, such as the difficulty in choosing the discount rate and the subjectivity of the certainty equivalent cash flow estimation. Despite having created a new standard in the understanding of what does the value of an investment project represent, real options literature is still uneasy with regards to valuation methods. The aim of this dissertation is to discuss the practical difficulties in the valuation/ quantification of the options present in a real asset. These are given both by the inadequacy in the methods that were designed specifically for financial derivatives, and by the subjectivity that is incurred when one makes use of alternative methods.