Redstripes, I think you are right. Ultimately, if you had 100%...

Redstripes, I think you are right. Ultimately, if you had 100% equity, you can build a mine with no off-takes in place (subject to the usual mining licence and statutory approvals, of course). Anything less, and it comes back to the precise mix you want between debt and equity. If you want to 100% debt fund the mine, then you'll need to evidence you can cover the servicing costs of the debt by a certain multiple.

As it stands, our existing 10ktpa offtake should cover almost a 30ktpa mine in terms of opex costs, but not capex payback, if we have 100% debt funded the mine. So we either need to raise some equity to get it through, or we get another offtake, or a combination of the two.

A further consideration though is going to be whether we can get a second mine (Merelani) producing asap, because if we can generate positive cashflow from that prior to commencing Epanko mine, then that will reduce the amount of equity we need to raise, or reduce the reliance upon an additional off-take (or a combination of the two).

This is why I'm especially excited at the thought of an additional off-take for Epanko, and the Merelani mine coming onboard to start cashflow earlier. As you rightfully said, it means less dilution when we expend the capex on Epanko, and hence makes a material positive impact on future cashflow and NPV of the company.