Banter and general comments, page-810

I agree with the majority of your observations. A few comments.

The theoretical al Li in spodumene is 8.03% but from a few articles I have read it’s appears a more practical level is 6% to 7% (and I do not understand why there is a difference). I use 6% in any analysis I undertake.

In the right side of the image below from hole 199 there was 1.52% Li which, if I use 6% as the practical level of Li in spodumene, means about one-quarter of that hole contained spodumene. From a visual observation of the image below, that seems reasonable. If I use 8% then 18.75% of the holes is spodumene which I feel from visuals seems a bit low. Others may disagree.

If hole 199 contained 25% spodumene (left side of the image below), one could reasonably say there is a lot more spodumene in hole 202 (ie a lot less grey quartz) and perhaps up to double the proportion of spodumene than in hole 199 (could it be more than double?). If the visual of hole 202 is representative of the visible coarse spodumene (ie the strongly red section) of holes 203 and 204, which indicates 50% spodumene then the grade of Li could be 3% in the dark red intervals - this would result in a grade across all the pegmatites in holes 203 and 204, including the extension into the 3 pegmatite, of a grade UP TO 1.5% for a length up to 100m in total for the 3 pegmatites these two holes drilled through. That would be a very good result.

In the 5 April announcement Tony states “ Visually, the observations of ABUNDANT visual spodumene demonstrate that the Andover pegmatites are fertile and strongly mineralised”. I emphasised the use of the word abundant.

Your observations about the 200m of pegmatites in hole 198 was one I missed. I read that announcement and noticed hole 198 ended in pegmatite so it has a minimum length of 200m. Agree with your comment that about the 200m.

As always this is all speculation until we see the assays!

It is so refreshing that @SugeKnight and @WowVeryJosh posts are really great and add greatly to our knowledge compared to the great amount of rubbish on HC which adds no value (I am referring to all stocks not just AZS). There is a lot of misleading information on HC and at times and continual up and down ramping based on almost no knowledge.

I post on HC so I can learn and I am happy if someone, with reasons and factual information, explains why I am wrong.

I don’t believe Tony needs SQM to inform him what is being seen as it’s obvious from the visuals and anyway SQM will be relying on what Tony and his team are relaying to them.