Shumbi, I'm pretty confident that AS and Co will be looking for...

Shumbi, I'm pretty confident that AS and Co will be looking for the maximum possible funding solution (and least equity dilution, given their personal substantial holdings), but if there is an equity component then they won't announce the price for that for a while yet.
- If the funding is a good outcome, (i.e. minimal or no equity dilution, cheap business interest rate) then the share price will go up, significantly.
- If the funding is an "average" outcome, then sp will get a bit of a bounce.
- If it's below average (like say 30% debt and 70% equity), then it will likely hover around where it is or drop a bit.
- If the funding was well below average (like say 0% debt, 100% equity) then sp drops a lot.

Of those 4 options, either of the first two are the only realistic options, with a strong bias to the first, given the German Govt guarantee. As someone said, they don't just hand these things out. I know from discussions a while ago with management, that debt costs were being negotiated at lower than the initial scoping study costs. As I posted at the time, banks only drop their margin for deals they want, and that are sound. (i.e. they price for risk. The riskier they think it is, the higher the cost. The less risk they think, the cheaper the cost).

Here is something else that we haven't really canvassed on the threads too much, but which I know management are aware of and likely considering (I have had personal discussions about this quite some time ago, but haven't sought an update recently, so I'm not speaking for them now, but I don't imagine anything has changed in this regard). When a company is a single asset company, whether you raise project equity or company equity is a moot point, and with most juniors it's just company equity (i.e. ordinary shares) that get issued. When you have other potential projects, then a potential avenue is to raise project equity instead of company equity. What this means is that if we have to raise say 10% to 30% in equity to get Epanko built, that instead of issuing more KNL shares, we instead issue specific equity for Epanko (which could be via a special class of shares, or notes, or something like that). The equity provider in that instance gets to participate fully in the equity upside that comes from the metrics of Epanko, but does not get to participate in the additional upside that the company generates from other sources. In our case, the two most likely paths of future upside are Merelani, and spherical processing. As I said, I know that this is something that our management have been thinking about as I know they are focused on getting the best outcome for shareholders, not merely because it's their duty to do so, but because they (management and connected family) as a group would be the single largest shareholder of KNL, so their interests are heavily aligned with ours.