Approach
A credit committee asks three questions. Our entire method exists to make each one answerable — with evidence, before submission, every time.
The three-leg test
Most failed packages answer one or two of these questions well and leave the third to goodwill. There is no goodwill in a credit committee.
Engineering, resource, yield and cost assumptions that survive independent review. Resource data with provenance. Sensitivities run honestly, not decoratively.
Fails when feasibility is a brochure, not an analysis.
A contracted offtaker whose own credit the lender can assess. We structure toward counterparties a lender can underwrite on their own record.
Fails when revenue depends on a payer the lender discounts.
A sponsor with the capability, track record and equity to carry the project through — and risk-transfer structures that give the lender someone to look to.
Fails when the sponsor is credible operationally but not financially.
The rejection criteria
Each one is fixable, and none is a failure of the market. Removing them, systematically and with evidence, is the work of this firm.
No credible yield, resource or demand study behind the revenue line.
No creditworthy buyer, and no bankable purchase agreement for the cash flow to rely on.
Land title, water rights, grid interconnection and permits left open.
Costs understated; sensitivities and downside scenarios absent.
No party owning construction, operating, currency or regulatory risk.
Assumptions that cannot be traced to a source, or defended in due diligence.
The method
The three-leg test is applied before any engagement begins. A project that cannot pass — even after preparation — is declined early, honestly, and with an explanation of what would have to change. Lenders trust our submissions because we do not submit everything.
The full package is built: a sourced feasibility narrative, a defensible financial model, offtake and counterparty assessment, permitting path, sponsor and ESG documentation, and a diligence-question log that anticipates what the lender will ask. Every assumption carries its source. Every conclusion can show its workings.
The package goes to the lenders whose mandate it actually fits — commercial banks, development finance institutions, climate facilities — structured around the risk-transfer instruments available to the deal. We manage the diligence process and carry the file through to a decision.
Inside “Prepare”
Preparation is not a document; it is a sequence of gates, each closed with evidence before the next opens. A named professional signs off at every one — the system reasons, a person decides.
The concept, sponsor and site are scoped, and the project is confirmed against the screen before any further work begins.
Resource, demand, technical and regulatory research — every material figure sourced, none asserted.
The financial model, built to the lender's conventions, with sensitivities and downside scenarios a credit team can rerun themselves.
A structured risk matrix: who carries construction, operating, currency and regulatory risk, and with what behind them.
The lender-ready information memorandum, with the diligence-question log that anticipates what the credit team will ask.
The deliverable
Not a study. A submission — built to be interrogated, and structured the way a lender reads it.
Alignment
A consultancy is paid for the study. We are paid for the preparation — and rewarded only when the project closes.Our economics sit with the lender's decision, not the page count.