I'm not a physicist or an engineer, so my apologies if I messed up any technical details. I've looked through the SE and found a few questions that touch on this issue (this one gets at the benefits of altitudes; this one at the fuel costs associated with launching from different altitudes; this one is again about the benefits of different altitudes; this one gets at stationkeeping fuel costs), but I haven't been able to put an answer together from them.
Consider a firm trying to launch a payload into orbit. The firm is trying to choose between two identically-shaped orbits at different altitudes, H and L (H>L). The orbits are not "too far" from each other, maybe H=L+150km. There are two fuel costs associated with H and L. One is the launch fuel cost, l(), where l(H) > l(L). The other is the stationkeeping fuel cost, where s(H) < s(L).
(My understanding is that the coverage area g() of orbit H will be greater than the coverage area of orbit L, i.e. g(H)>g(L), but I'm mainly interested in the fuel costs for now.)
My question: Is it possible to unambiguously rank the fuel costs associated with these orbits? That is, can I make a statement like, "l(H) + s(H) > l(L) + s(L)"? From what I've read, it seems like the fuel mass required for launch is orders of magnitude greater than the fuel mass required for stationkeeping, but I haven't been able to figure out the associated costs per unit of fuel.
I imagine this will depend on the altitudes H and L. I'm thinking about relatively low orbits, maybe L=700km. I've used the transfer orbit calculator here to get an idea of the magnitudes involved, but I'm not sure how to convert the delta-V difference (~40m/s for 700km to 850km) into $ cost, and I haven't been able to figure out the stationkeeping fuel requirement.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank you!