What makes mWz different · Dossier D-02
Written for the credit committee, not for the pitch deck.
A feasibility study is only worth what it survives. Most studies present a base case and stop. Ours is built so that the numbers hold when a lender’s analyst pulls at them: every assumption is sourced and dated, every sensitivity is run before submission, and the downside case is published rather than buried. That is the difference between a document that supports a decision and one that merely describes an ambition.
Typical duration
8–14 weeks, scope-dependent
Core disciplines
Planning · engineering · market · environment · finance
Model standard
Auditable, transparent formulas, sourced inputs
Stress testing
Sensitivity and downside cases run pre-issue
Primary reader
Credit committee, investment committee, board
01 · PROCESS MAP
How the work moves
Stage 1 — Parameters
Real-world constraints
Legal framework, lifecycle projections, risk profile, country of interest conditions.
Stage 2 — Analytical engine
Every variable processed
Structural feasibility, environmental impact, market demand, cross-disciplinary integration.
Stage 3 — Bankable output
Investor-ready proposition
Conclusive data-driven decisions, return analysis, complete prospectus.
02 · WORKFLOW
Step by step, with the gates that stop it
Diamonds are stage gates. Work does not pass one until its criteria are met — which is what keeps a programme honest when it is under pressure.
01 Parameter set established
We fix the ground truth first: local legal and regulatory framework, target country conditions, lifecycle projections and the risk profile the project actually carries. Nothing is assumed that can be sourced.
Gate A — Assumptions locked and sourced
Every material assumption has an origin, a date and an owner. Unsourced assumptions are flagged as risk, never carried silently.
02 Technical feasibility evaluated
Structural and geotechnical viability, utilities capacity, buildability and constructability under local conditions and local labour realities.
03 Market demand validated
Demand depth, absorption rates, achievable pricing and competing supply — tested against observed transactions, not aspiration.
04 Environmental and social position
Impact assessment, mitigation strategy and the permitting path, mapped to the approvals actually required in the jurisdiction.
05 Financial model built and stressed
Capex and opex build-up, phased cashflow, IRR, NPV and debt service coverage — then the downside: cost overrun, delay, demand shortfall and rate movement.
Gate B — Base case survives stress
Coverage and return hold under the agreed downside scenarios. If they do not, we restructure the project rather than re-word the study.
06 Bankable output issued
A conclusive, evidence-backed position: proceed, restructure or stop — with the reasoning, the numbers and the appendix that supports both.
03 · ENGAGEMENT
What we need, what you get
What we need from you
- Site and title information — boundaries, tenure, encumbrances, existing approvals.
- Your return threshold — the IRR, yield or coverage ratio below which you would decline.
- Intended capital structure — equity available, debt sought, any grant or sovereign element.
- Timing constraints — concession dates, policy windows, board calendars.
What you receive
- Full feasibility report with a conclusive recommendation, not a menu of options.
- Auditable financial model — formulas visible, inputs sourced, handed over in full.
- Sensitivity and downside pack showing what breaks the project and at what point.
- Risk register with mitigation owner and residual rating for each line.
mWz provides technical, market and financial analysis to inform your decision. It is not investment advice and does not replace your own legal, tax and financial advisors — whose review we expect and support.
Discuss investor-ready feasibility for your project
Send us the position you hold — a site, a mandate, a policy window — and we will tell you what it would take to make it bankable.