COMSEC Snapshot Report for today AZV vs PLB, page-61

@Process1 you asked me this in LTR, and I am going to answer it here because I shouldn't need to explain AVZ in a LTR thread. It is unfair to other posters there. And I am sure your question is one of continuing on with the debates between shareholders but here it is

"Hi Scarpa, can you please explain us AVZ Lithium ore body structure, transport equipment, roads, final destination & direction, number of involved countries, sovereign risk and processing plant location"

A lot of your questions are transport based, and it is clear transport is a risk for AVZ, always has been. Just like depth is for LTR and operating in WA where WA is a feature of risk (yes low sovereign risk) but medium to high risk that capital cost and opex cost estimates are increased, as well as time lines missed (i.e. LNG a classic example, whilst in Africa things get done pretty quick when people/governments have a common plan - you can't even build a road in WA without timelines blowing out and cost).

Click on my name, I have explained ore body in the AVZ thread and sovereign risk and the strip rato is known, and commented on weathering as well. The AVZ orebody is actually coarse large grain spodumene that because DMS works (above 50%) means it can easily be separated from the lattice - weathered to about 30 metres to 40 metres (read the Anns) - it is why they can produce 55% - 60% recovery rates at DMS only. (With floatation - will get to just over 80%, which was the basis of the May 2019 SS btw, so I am expecting retrofitting at some point).

AVZ have a number of pegmatites btw on the tenements but two of those pegmatites seem the best prospect Carriere and Roche - at Roche most of their drills recorded plus 100 metres - 150 metres of good quality spod, average grade 1.5% Li20, and that is why their measured and indicated resource is larger than other deposits despite fewer drills (and hence the low strip ratio). It is why it is a homogeneous deposit. One large, high width, length and depth pegmatite - compare the pics of the pegamites to others (i.e. they are there in the Anns), including LTR btw.

When they went looking for water AVZ found 70 metres of spodumene in that drill LOL - average grade is 1.5% Li20. I even posted there the other day on MET tests and mica btw, given AVZ has provided those results to assess. Here if you are really interested and I am not sure why you are asking this Ann itself is pretty consistent with what they have been releasing - pretty educational for all lithium players. Post #: 41005358 A spodumene pegamatite, like some have debated in various threads, doesn't mean it doesn't have impurities - a spodumene pegamatite itself has feldspar, quartz and mica to start with, so it is the total pegamtite that needs considering and on that front AVZ has published its stuff, and the key is how easy is the spodumene liberated from the ore 9and DMS is a guide to that easiness btw).

Infact, with what AVZ have published in their Anns you can pretty well IMO, if you know what your doing, get to the same level of detail as this lithium player reports (i.e. Table 1,2, 4, especially on the resource - your METs follow on from this hence you can test METs outcomes ftom assays but for mica it is actually the fluorin and a few other things that are the key - see the two links below, and we don't need to debate that company btw):
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190801/pdf/4473vblh92dfz7.pdf
https://ir.piedmontlithium.com/sec-filings-email/content/0001728205-19-000026/ex99_1.htm

The AVZ DFS is actually going to be the thing I will be looking out for in explaining the 'new' transport route that uses Angola (DRC/Angola noting the rail route as 'renewed by the Chinese', so two countries and it was DRC/Tanzania if they went that route btw), since it would appear they are no longer doing the Tanzanian option (or might be doing the Tanzanian option also all I know and the DFS will say what they are doing). If you are implying a few countries well enough things get exported out of DRC to say it works - just look at what Ivanhoe and Glencore does for example there. But yes people know the transport risk issue - controlling transport risk is a key as are transport costs for AVZ obviously.

The new proposed AVZ route by the looks of it is far more rail than road, but the key is what they plan to do with a transport connection of the main road to Manono to the rail head. The Chinese are building the main sealed road to Manono btw and upgraded/built the Angolan railway that goes to port - the key is the cost of a sealed road of that road to the railhead that is currently a gravel road and that is what I will look at in the DFS. See I await the DFS there, and see what that says but in the past they have been quoting transport costs of around US$223 per tonne, so the premise is the Angolan route will be less, and because of low strip ratios and been amenable to DMS production costs of about $100 per tonne given floatation is not a large component of overall production there (i.e. in the 5mtpa SS they were working of 55% recovery DMS, just over 25% floatation for total recovery of about 82%, albeit they now are using DMS (and retrofit floatation).

Short term, they will be exporting 6% grade spodumene btw. Hydroxide production on site they need to up the power source and more importantly transporting hydroxide is a completely different kettle of fish to spodumene concentrate btw and a lot riskier the greaater the distance given the nature of sealing required to stop oxidisation, i.e. this is also a risk for hydroxide produced in WA btw too, so that won't happen until later on btw (i.e. I suspect stage 1 is DMS, stage 2 add floatation and stage 3 is then, if feasible, read get a power source and work out how to transport hydroxide, hydroxide onsite.

Now what is the basis of your hypothesis btw in your question too me? I could sit down and dissect LTR btw on the information they have provided and interpretations of data (noting in terms of myself I have simply accepted their word that the deposit has low Fe203 and Mica given that is what they have said and obviously the METs say low deleterious elements and low cost as per how the last METs translated to opex costs there, albeit I must admit the question is strip ratio and how reflective are those costs but you have to accept what was put in the PFS there, despite what is happening with other lithium players) but don't think it serves anyone a purpose because you need to rely on the company Anns you have. I mean in the other thread in LTR that is really what has been directed at tendoji btw - trust LTR's Ann, yes or no? You can answer that question for me in the LTR thread if you like, i.e. I mean your understanding of the LTR resource, the octopus tentacles in the open pit section, depth and extraction techniques, deleterious elements etcetc - AVZ is going to be a pretty straight forward open cut operation (i.e. read not an artisinal mine and no child labour IMO) IMO, but transport a key risk as AVZ can't control transport costs.

If you like,we can discuss production risk arising from high strip ratios in open cut sections, to capex and cost overrun issues that are a feature of WA mining, plus delays in bringing things to production which are also a feature of producing in WA, but again that doesn't serve a purpose here either - it is simply a risk but again yo have to trust the LTR DFS it will put put. Have you noticed I have said here I will await for LTR's DFS, and won't make comments on a number of issues until then. I can certainly see how LTR might be brought to production but that is a question for the DFS and its plans. Hint - my take in the underground section for LTR is the costs will be ok, infact might surprise on the upside to the traditional cost structures you see from open cut sections to underground. If you want you can answer these questions in your thread.

It is pretty simply too me that this pissing contest among stocks has to end at some point, or are we just going to continue debating things for the next year, each party having a DFS by then as well etc etc. When I post in LTR I actually seek to provide balance, i.e it is what I did yesterday after your posts of transport routes in africa and my reply to you on that, Post #: 43243913, and now your latest reply which I think is best answered here) and I also have a balancing opinion on some of the visitors here - it would be good for some reciprical but I doubt that will come so I'll let yourselves battle it out and laugh at all the legal threats that are getting lobbed over the fence at each other over there. Seriously with the sheninigans gong on, you think there is scope for only one new greenfields project - when a number of new greenfields projects are required.

Oh, on a final point, the Angolan route is interesting for one thing - that side, the European market is better served and distance to Europe also helps transport costs because most commodity producers get paid on a FOB basis. If they want to export into China, they probably need the Tanzanian route to open as well. Hence the things I will be looking out for in the AVZ DFS, but why the hell I need to discuss it in the LTR thread is another story.

Yes transport is a risk, just like LTR possibly becoming the first open cut, transitioning to underground mine, also faces its own risks and challenges. Above are some questions, happy to be tagged into your answers on LTR thread if that is what you want to do- personally I think i am wasting my time posting in LTR so won't post there again, but look forward to your DFS. If I end up been a SH there - depending on your DFS - then I'll post there again, but I'll just stick to where I am invested, unless asked for an opinion but then will need to decide whether I should answer it.

All IMO and all the best with your investments.