Morning and thanks for the responses. I will reply here in one...

Morning and thanks for the responses. I will reply here in one go.

@WM03 yes I am on the record (here and on X) as stating I think the Macquarie lithium analysts are rubbish - they were far too slow to adjust their price forecasts (and retail generally lapped it up given they remained bullish). But I post their note as they, along with CG, are one of the few analysts covering the stock so it's still interesting seeing what their take is. As for what I've said about the offtake, respectfully I think you may have overlooked the key point: Galan have signed a binding term sheet. Glencore have signed a binding term sheet "subject to Glencore's satisfaction in its absolute discretion". I trust you can see the key difference here - the offtake is binding for Galan, but appears less so for Glencore. As I've said before, I think it would be bullish if Glencore walked away, because it would free Galan to actually be able to negotiate with other parties. Unfortunately, I can't see why they would give up that optionality. So that leaves JP and co only with phase 2 offtake to offer to potential new financing parties. This does not solve their immediate issues with phase 1 funding.

@ResourceEagle Galan's announcement mentions "potential advance payments" in relation to the royalty - this is what the Macquarie analysts are referencing. Galan claim this is "similar" to the Australian regime but I have to say paying royalties in advance seems very irregular to me - I've only ever seen them paid retrospectively, i.e. after the revenue is earned. Advance payments during ramp up will put pressure on cashflows. FWIW, I don't think the government will actually force them to do it - there's no point putting a key regional employer in ramp up under further pressure. But the fact the "pivotal" agreement sees the royalty go from 3% to 7%, and includes reference to these potential advance payments, suggests to me that @Gwaihir's questions are on the money: this was driven by the government; Galan required the additional time in suspension to spin the message in as positive a light as they could, do the smiling photo-op, etc. I think the announcement actually gives this away: they went into a halt on 15 April, and the announcement says they signed the deal on 19 April Argentina time - hence the newspaper reported it on our Saturday 20 April.

@merwej the reason I think Glencore capture the upside is because a) they are the king of commodity traders, so when a junior comes to the table to negotiate there's a massive power imbalance; and b) the original offtake announcement stated "the price payable by Glencore will be referenced to a mutually agreed lithium carbonate price index over a quotational period less a marketing fee, discount and penalties (if any)." That to me sounds like someone captures most of the margin, and the someone is likely the global commodity trading giant. Glencore are generally not the party you turn to when you want to retain the upside. If you want further evidence of that, go and look at the financial state of flooded-copper-player 29M, who just announced a $50M finance rescue package with Glencore... without disclosing the interest rate payable.