Moin csadeev,relax a bit. When I quoted ...7% royalty on net...

Moin csadeev,

relax a bit. When I quoted ...7% royalty on net revenue is quite hefty, and represents a 130% (!) increase on the previously used 3% royalty figure, I avoided mentioning you by name. My intention was not to discredit you personally, but to make a sensationalised 130% (!) increase.If I hit you personally, I apologise.

If you read my post again carefully, you might notice that I am referring to daando's figures. Which, by the way, are comprehensible. In my own modelling, I arrive at a 28 million NPV after tax difference, which in turn corresponds to roughly a 6% reduction.This is simply tapping into the figures without a market-based interpretation of an export licence.I think we can all agree that an exorbinate expansion of a national customer base, most of which is still in the construction phase itself, to an international customer base would offer considerable added value.
In my DFS model, I assume a chloride factor of 72%.With respect, I find @Fredwah's figures difficult to understand and incorrect.

...if the government suddenly took an extra 8% each year from your salary/distributions/super indefinitely for the rest of your life. I think you wouldn't be that forgiving in such instance and you would probably start using the terms hefty, unfair or extreme as well...

You are welcome to think I'm crazy, but my answer to this is "No"! I think we have a huge difference in thinking here.If a government measure paves the way for a promising long-term business model with predicted high double-digit returns, then I am happy to give my share to the country. I think 4% on top, 7% in total, is indeed fair.I have often communicated my long-term perspective here and that I see shareprice potential of several 100 %. Maybe that's why I see today's announcement more favourably than you do.
At this point, just a thought. Galan is a foreign company in Argentina. I assume you are Australian? The following assumption. In AUS it was previously only permitted to mine spodumene if at the same time value was added for hydroxide or carbonate processing took place at the same time. Now a foreign company comes and "only" wants to mine and export spodumene. What level of royalty would you consider appropriate?

My biggest criticism was the wrong choice of partner with Glencore. Really annoying, as I expressed my unease to the management in the run-up to the Gencore/Eramet deal. Glencore has often played dirty games in the past.That is why I have been advocating a decoupling and the search for alternatives in recent months. The ATM Funding Facility was a first, admittedly small but necessary step.Today's announcement is another correct and important step away from the lockdown. Of course, like many others here, I had hoped that an export licence would be announced today. In my opinion, the future granting of the licence should only be a formality.The implications for current and future negotiations are enormous. Up to now, it has been possible/necessary to limit oneself to the neighbours or the supposed "white knight" Glencore. The large market remained closed because the hurdle of not having an export licence was too great. To be clear This market is now opening up.

At this point, Galan has another ASS up its sleeve. Galan is 100 % owned. This is unusual in a lithium market that is more or less incestuous due to the many JVs and familary connections.

Now Daniel can finally let off steam!

Smith71