How institutional capital actually assesses a critical-mineral project — domain by domain, weighted the way a credit committee weights it, with the gaps that cost nothing but organisation to close.
They stall on sequence, and on duplication.
We read what 64 mining executives said publicly about their DFI and ECA financing processes — annual reports, investor presentations, conference panels, published interviews. Nearly half described the same problem, independently, in different jurisdictions and different commodities.
"Each lender has a different standard and none of them talk to each other."
CEO, DRC lithium developer · shareholder letter, 2023That is not an information problem. These developers knew precisely what was required. The cost was proving the same thing three times — once for IFC Performance Standards, once for the national mining code, once for lender covenants — with three sets of advisers and three timelines that did not align.
One described two processes running in parallel for fourteen months without talking to each other. Another said no single framework covered all three of their requirements. A third said neither institution had a template, so they wrote it themselves.
"Those two clocks rarely run at the same speed."
President, DRC copper-cobalt developer · Mining Indaba, 2024 — on IFC Performance Standards running alongside national permittingEvery institutional capital provider assesses some version of these five. The weights below reflect what stops capital most often — not what is most interesting technically.
Signed agreements, letters of intent, pricing terms, counterparty credit quality. The heaviest weight because it is the first covenant a credit committee tests — revenue certainty determines whether anything else matters.
"The gap between those two standards is where most projects stall."
CEO, Zimbabwe PGM developer · Mining Indaba panel, 2023Resource classification under a CRIRSCO-family code — JORC, NI 43-101, S-K 1300, PERC — with Competent or Qualified Person sign-off, and a data room that supports it. Prepared properly once, the same evidence reports to whichever code the lender uses.
"We essentially had to rebuild our data room from scratch."
CEO, Northern Territory REE developer · investor briefing, 2026IFC Performance Standards 1–6, ISO 14001, EU CRMA Article 5, and increasingly EU Taxonomy. This is the domain where standards overlap most and reconcile least — and where the duplication cost falls hardest.
"Two processes ran in parallel for 14 months without talking to each other."
MD, Western Australia REE developer · investor presentation, 2023Political risk banding, mining law stability, permit timeline predictability, currency risk. Largely outside your control — but how well you have mapped it is entirely within it.
"Neither institution had a template for it. We essentially wrote the playbook."
CEO, Angola REE developer · trade press interview, 2023Operator track record, QP/CP independence, board governance, key-person risk, management depth. Lenders are underwriting execution, not just an orebody.
"No single framework covers all three."
CEO, Australia/Malaysia REE producer · annual report, 2022Your accessible capital is a function of your lowest domains, not your highest. A world-class resource with unresolved tenure is a project most institutions cannot touch, whatever the grade.
| Score | Band | Capital typically accessible |
|---|---|---|
| 0–39 | Not ready | Founder capital, government exploration support, grants |
| 40–54 | Early | Exploration equity, specialist junior resource funds |
| 55–69 | Developing | Strategic investors and offtakers, resource equity, royalty |
| 70–84 | Bankable-adjacent | Royalty and streaming, DFI engagement opens |
| 85+ | Credit-ready | DFI and ECA debt, senior project finance |
The rule that costs people most: do not approach capital above your band. Every conversation with a provider who structurally cannot fund a project at your stage burns a relationship you will need later — at exactly the moment you are finally ready for them.
Score all five domains honestly. Have someone independent challenge the scores. Identify your three lowest. Assemble existing evidence into one indexed structure, sorted by permit. Contact no capital providers this month.
A surprising share of readiness gaps cost organisation, not money: expired document renewals, missing sign-offs, unindexed evidence, an unwritten permitting timeline, community engagement that happened but was never recorded. Fix everything in this category before spending on new technical work.
With a defensible score, identify which capital categories your band actually reaches. Approach those. Track every response, and log what each provider pushes back on — those objections are your next gap list, and they are more accurate than any self-assessment.
Six emails over three weeks, one per domain plus the sequence. What "ready" looks like in each, the evidence that satisfies more than one standard at a time, and the mistakes that cost the most.
Email only. No call, no pitch. Unsubscribe in one click. Data held in the EU under GDPR.
The developers who close fastest are not the ones with the best geology. They are the ones who found out what was missing before committing six figures to an audit that tells them the same thing.
Five questions, ninety seconds. You'll see your band and the three gaps doing the most damage.
Get your score →