Ann: Application for Permanent 200-Person Camp at HMW, page-24

Thanks, a refreshing response (also to @outandabout I apologise for the 'baggier' comment; probably unfair, I just get beyond frustrated at someone calling FUD over what is a real and factual matter). Exactly how it'll affect other companies is a different discussion - I'm just considering this from an immediate GLN perspective. The reality is that at some point soonish post-DFS we're going to have to look at options to fund the project capex. Consider that back at PEA stage, capex was earmarked at USD 440M (inclusive of 30% contingency). That amount alone easily exceeds our current market cap. In my experience, many people discount how difficult it is to raise funds of this size, whether via equity, bank debt, or issuing bonds etc. It's far more popular to think "Huge demand for resource XYZ, this'll definitely happen" and of course that attracts many many likes, so people may think "I can't be wrong, 55 others liked this too". Yet capex is basically the big hurdle for any junior like Galan. I completely agree that being towards the low end of the cost-curve will help, if you want to bring it back to a peer discussion (which is relevant, because at the end of the day when it comes back to funding a project, it is a competition for funds). This is where having a high-quality resource is critical because every cost thereafter is slightly lower. So yes lots of benefits when it comes to a peer discussion, but I was talking from a macro perspective. Investors are generally not good at seeing very-bad downside, we have a natural bias to positivity when we've put our money at risk. A good example of this is Koi-7's original response: "Lithium projects generating much needed revenue will be highly prized more than ever by Government". Hilariously, that's exactly my point. What is the big downside risk? Nationalisation? (think Mexico/Bolivia) Super profits taxes? (think Queensland and coal). Koi has put that forward as though it's an answer to a concern, whereas ironically it IS the concern. Better to throw ideas around and test assumptions when a country has a wobble, rather than be hand-wringing after the fact (which holders of another very popular lithium company will now be aware).

As for the comments about USD currency protection, points made are true but that's broadly glossing over the issue. It's not just about currency - we're still trying to build a significant project in Argentina, hiring local workers, using local infrastructure, paying local companies for shipping/construction and so on. Currency is one part of it, but not the be-all-and-end-all. If you look at any of the recent WA miners reporting in the last quarter, all of them have seen significant cost pressures. I'm suggesting Argentina won't be immune to this, and in fact it'll be worse off due to the unstable financial/political situation going on as well. A little realism goes a long way when one is waiting for a DFS. I'll leave it here. Cheers