Banter and general comments, page-288

As posters may have observed I do lots of comparisons - this time with WRI. I like dealing in facts and a balanced approach.

It is important to look at apples with apples comparisons not as some posters who consider doing apples and pears is fair but only provides a distorted view.

Lets compare WR1 with AZS lithium at a similar development stage. Happy if someone points out errors in my comparison

- AZS had over 700 pegmatite outcroppings - WR1 were lucky to have 50 (and seems to have had a lot less from what I observe from their announcements)
- AZS pegmatites were up to 1.2km in length with a number being over 100m wide and some even 200m wide. By comparison WR1 outcrops were small in dimensions (compared to LTR and PLS, AZS outcrops were very large).
- AZS have had over 700 rock chip samples with more on the way. Yes many were under 0.4% lithium BUT there were hundreds over 1% which were concentrated in the northern and central areas and there were a significant number over 2% and 3% again concentrated in certain areas. It seems the outcrops in the southern area are not heavily mineralised with lithium but the northern and central ones are heavily mineralised. WR1 hardly had any in comparison but did have some high grade rock chips at Adina (but limited in number)
- AZS has one of the 2 biggest lithium producers in the world as a cornerstone investor - WR1 don’t have such an attribute
- AZS have 13 high priority targets - heaps more than WR1 - WR1 did have other signs of lithium ie soil chemistry.
- AZS have been restricted in where it can drill - as the CEO stated in an interview there are only allows to drill from where holes 201 to 205 until they receive permits to drill elsewhere especially their highest priority targets. No such limitation applied to WR1 that I observed
- AZS were drilling for Ni but received an assay of 7m @1.55% Li in hole 199 - even this compares well to WR1 early assay results (see my images in next post)
- In AZS’s first dedicated lithium drill holes they encountered pegmatite lengths in 3 holes (202 to 204) of 60m to 70m and when holes 2023 and 204 are extended the lengths will most likely be around 100m. In addition each of the four holes had visible coarse spodumene - holes 202 to 203 had multiple lengths of visible spodumene up to 30m in length ie high grade lengths. At the same stage WR1 had nothing like this (see images below). If AZS end up with high grade lithium over the 60-70m and potentially 100m in Holes 203 and 204 (and that is not a given) then WR1 will compare poorly against AZS early assay results (see WR1 images in next post).

What does this comparison show:
- AZS has a much more compelling potential for a large lithium deposit than WR1 at the same stage of development. My earlier comparisons at the same stage show AZS compares more favourably to PLS and LTR but with KDR we need more results to see if it compares favourable - if we get 60-70m or even 100m mineralisation from holes 203 to 204 then it will be compare favourably to KDR.

Not sure if I missed anything.

What does the comparison NOT show:
- it does not demonstrate that WR1 will not end up with a major lithium deposit - ie it may end up with one
- nor does it demonstrate that AZS will end up with a major lithium deposit

Will post the WR1 images in a following post.