obviously, rnu and gln cannot be compared. rnu has been sitting...

obviously, rnu and gln cannot be compared. rnu has been sitting on a big pile of cash for some time (for a company at this stage).

nevertheless, there is a crucial parallel:

- the bulldozed price environment of the future end product due to chinese influence

rnu's cash position is roughly comparable to that of gln prior to the start of construction, in relation to the subsequent project size and its costs. like gln, rnu is dependent on debt capital. now one of these companies has started construction and the other has not.

the example of rnu shows that even if a company is sitting on cash and does nothing,

1) the value of a shareholder still falls massively 2) a construction stop which is implemented in times of uncertainty does not mean that a company will no longer need fresh capital in the short or long term.

once again: rnu has not started construction. in my opinion, this is largely due to the drop in graphite prices.

a construction stop does not only go hand in hand with the points from my earlier post. of course, there will also be maintenance costs for buildings, ponds and infrastructure that have already been built. as i already explained, stopping construction at this stage does more harm than slowing down the process or continuing construction.

what would be the options that gln now has in this extremely difficult time?
1) glencore pre payment on production for the first five years
2) glencore pre payment, which must be paid back later
3) another player enters the stage and executes 1) or 2)
4) government loans at probably astronomical interest rates
5) (requires an export license) a state or company outside argentina executes 1) or 2)
6) cap raise / financing through debt
7) selling candelas or greenbushes.
in my opinion, each of these points requires further construction.