I think the problem here is that you are making assertions about what the 'market' wants AZS to do and you are getting that confused with your own opinion. Unless you are every single player and buyer and seller of shares on the ASX, then you can't make claim that you are the sole arbiter of what the market thinks.
Your 'legitimate concerns' have met strongly opposing posts because you continue to make your own strong assertions as fact. Lets look at them:
1. Technical concerns about short term share price direction in an early stages exploration company where the driver of the share price and sentiment is 'news driven', exploration success or failure with the drill rig will have a large impact on the share price and investor/trader sentiment at these early stages because the story is incomplete and evolving.
2. Technical concerns about the levels of short interest in AZS, as has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions the level of short interest is slightly below average for its peers despite your colourful misrepresentations and some would argue that the level of short interest has very little bearing on the long term direction of a stocks share price. Shorters are just part of the market and they are subject to the same vagaries and market forces that change markets and sentiment as longs. You continue to make the assertion that TA is the sole method for determining price direction in a stock except when the share price behaves differently to your predictions and you resort to conspiracy theories about why the share price (temporarily) isn't behaving as predicted with you being the sole arbiter of whether TA is valid or not.
3. Geological concerns - your assertions about "disappointing grades and widths" show a naive attitude that orebodies are predictable homogeneous things without any variability or complexity, ore bodies are not of uniform grade or width and do not extend to the centre of the earth without limits, its a simple reality of exploration drilling that some holes eventually will test beyond the limits of what later prove to the the economic limits of that particular orebody, and your unwillingness to accept this reality means that you are never going to get satisfaction from any mineral exploration company. You have been pulled up multiple times by different posters discussing widths and grades of drill intercepts and shown that your posts are mis-representations of the results released so far, both in grade and thickness. Your assertions about decreasing grade of ore in conductor VC-07 are as of yet unproven speculation and only the drill rig and consequent assays will tell the story.
4. Exploration planning concerns - as @Nihilius pointed out to you, the company itself has very clearly described the proportions of money set aside for drilling VC07 conductors and other conductors that are not drill tested yet. You continue to make assertions that your opinions are the opinions of all market participants and that AZS should be announcing planned drill holes where they may not have refined their detailed geochemical and/or geophysical understanding yet. Each one of these new conductors will need to be ranked, and then further evaluated and then proposed drill sites will need to have WA government approvals and native title clearances done before ground disturbance and drill pad preparation. Its just typical exploration priorities that will dictate which of these targets will be selected for further drilling and when and a lot of these steps are outside the companies control as far as time frames go so they are not going to drill test all 20 or so remaining EM targets simultaneously, you are going to just have to accept that reality, and as some targets are tested some will prove to be failures, and maybe one or a very few might be successful to justify further follow up work, in the meantime the company is drilling at the VC-07 conductor to satisfy themselves that the scientific postulation that the EM conductors are representative of sulphide bodies that may or may not have sufficient Ni and Cu grades to become viable orebodies in the future because its still their best target and has demonstrated (so far) to be a successful method of finding mineralisation, why would the company ignore that information? The company has made it clear to all investors what proportion of money they expect to spend on VC-07 vs other regional prospects and the timing and direction of this spending will also depend on the results of what they are drilling during the year.
Still haven't seen your geological/geophysical or mineral exploration qualifications and expertise that support your sweeping assertions, and by reading your posts so far, its pretty easy to tell that your understanding of these disciplines and their methodology is very poor indeed.
If you review my posting history on AZS you'll see that I haven't made any bold and certain predictions about the grade/tonnage and spatial geological relationships at VC-07 or indeed any of their exploration ground yet, because I am not there and because its extremely early in the exploration story and the understanding of it to be making any certain predictions or trends yet, right now for AZS, its a learning exercise as the geophysics, drilling and geology all unfold to reveal what is usually a fairly complex story when it comes to orebodies.
Here is a list of my posting contributions, some positive and some negative opinions, go over to the AMG and AVZ threads and see how other posters perceive my contributions there:
And here is your posting history - all unrelentingly negative and on one sole topic.
So before you go lumping me in with a bunch of other mindless 'uprampers' you might want to consider reading and understanding the various opinions that different posters have on these threads.
AZS Price at posting:
50.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
