Well the SBLC is the 'cash collateral'. Except to obtain the...

Well the SBLC is the 'cash collateral'. Except to obtain the SBLC of the type that CRDB will accept, WKT also need to provide security of which there's none because CRDB in addition to the SBLC that covers their loan amount 100%, is also demanding all the other assets of Lindi Jumbo as security. Essentially handicapped WKT pathways to obtain the SBLC.

And had WKT realised the full extent of the security requirement from CRDB, they would've walked away last year and continued with AXIOM bank instead. Basically, it was a bait and switch of sorts - except there's almost no payoff for the bank other than to screw up WKT funding pathway. Who would approach a bank to borrow if the requirement is to have not just the same amount but more cash + assets as collateral (and that's after spending 8m raised as companion equity on the project to de-risk it)? The down rampers will dress this as some indication of 'extreme risk' posed by WKT's project, but above and beyond that implication, it is a non-nonsensical scenario to begin with and run contrary to the concept of leverage and pricing of risk in finance. If CRDB's bankers are totally irrational, is there any reasonable conclusions you can draw from their actions and inference on WKT other than the bank is irrational?