I'm not putting any revolutionary thoughts or interpretations out here, everything can be interpreted from AZS's own releases.
Look at the
projections. Why have they projected the pegmatites in that direction like that, at that specific angle?
Look at the bottom pegmatite in ANDD0204. How have they projected the pegmatite in that direction with only one intercept?
Why could it not look like this? Why have Azure projected the above sections in the specific way they have done?
Relating to surface pegmatite size, outcrop width doesn't mean much with flat-lying pegmatites. Two pegmatites, both the same width (10m), the dark grey dips at 80
° and the brown dips at 20
°. Yet the surface outcrop is vastly different size.
Add in topography and it becomes even more convoluted on the surface, yet the pegmatites are
still the same width under cover.
Same pegmatites, both 10m width at depth, now with a topographic high, e.g., a mountain.
You can see the same effect with the Pilgangoora pegmatites from your image, where the surface outcrop is larger than the pegmatite true width when the structure angle is lower. And its closer to true width when the pegmatite is steeper. The Azure pegmatites are even shallower than the 'Flatter Peg' here from the Pilgangoora section, so this effect is exaggerated further.
"your figures of the potential size of the resource may be sensible."
I've made no claims here about the potential resource size.
