Project finance is limited-recourse debt raised against the contracted cash flows of a single asset or project company rather than a sponsor's balance sheet. Zenith builds the financial model, tests bankability against lender criteria, structures the debt around DSCR and risk allocation, and runs the process through to financial close.
Sponsors moving a project from development into construction and needing the debt sized, structured and committed.
First-of-a-kind and early-commercial assets where the technology risk has to be made legible rather than argued away.
Owners refinancing construction debt into long-term facilities or releasing equity from a performing asset.
Counterparties whose contract has to be shaped into something a lender will underwrite as revenue.
| Parameter | Range |
|---|---|
| Project size | USD 100m – 600m+ |
| Tenor | 7 – 18 years |
| Structures | Senior / subordinated / mezzanine, ECA-covered, vendor finance |
| Gearing | 60 – 80% debt, technology and contract dependent |
| DSCR | 1.20x – 1.45x base case |
| Indicative timeline | 6 – 18 months from mandate to financial close |
Commercial model
A retainer through bankability and structuring, where most of the work sits, and a success fee at financial close. Pre-bankability work is priced as a fixed scope — it is considerably cheaper than a failed process.
Phase
Phase
Phase
Limited-recourse debt sized to DSCR against contracted revenue. Most projects stall at debt sizing rather than at equity, and that is a bankability problem, not a marketing one.
Plant and processing facilities financed on offtake and cost-curve position, with commodity scenarios run as a matrix rather than one variable at a time.
Asset-level facilities against charters, leases and long-term utilisation contracts, with the residual-value assumption tested before a lender tests it.
USD 553,000,000
total project cost
Restructuring the funding plan for a three-phase integrated steel build
Phased project finance — senior, subordinated, mezzanine and vendor debt against a brownfield revival and capacity expansion to 1.84 MTPA
Debt structuring for a green hydrogen and ammonia production programme
Project finance debt sizing, sculpting and DSCR covenant design for a Gulf hydrogen and ammonia programme
A pre-bankability model and funding framework for a greenfield tin smelter
Project finance model and funding framework for a greenfield tin smelting facility
Unallocated risk. A gap between the offtake contract and the construction contract shows up as a lender condition nobody can satisfy, and it surfaces late — after the advisers are appointed and the timetable is public.
Yes, but not on the same terms as proven technology. Lenders size down, require completion support or an ECA wrap, and test the technology case through an independent engineer. The work is making the uncertainty legible rather than arguing it away.
Partly. Merchant revenue reduces the debt a lender will size, so structures usually blend contracted and merchant volumes with lower gearing and a stronger DSCR floor.
It extends tenor and lowers pricing in exchange for sourcing requirements and a premium. On emerging-market projects it is often the difference between a bankable structure and no structure at all, which makes it a design decision, not a fallback.
Once the offtake is signed or near-final and the model can survive a technical adviser. Approaching earlier burns credibility with exactly the desks the project will need later.
No. Zenith runs the debt workstream and the model, and coordinates the adviser set. The sponsor keeps the development and the relationships.
Tell us the transaction and the timetable. If it is not something we should run, we will say so.
