Running discussion on SP, page-5061

"Like to hear what others think, but I would actually like to know from managment what conceivable production could come from AVZ in their opinion in the time period 2021 - 2027."

Like your posts scarpa, to me anyway they seem like you take a sensible economics based view.

As you would know I've been critical of AVZ not hitting stated targets in the past (drill rigs to site etc). I note others are getting stirner (ozblue, Dr Wolf, gouldians) whilst ironically I'm inclined now to cut them a little more slack (the assays we are awaiting are in here in Australia at least). I also take statements like "hoping" and "expecting" are forward looking. For me those qualifying words matter. I'll give management a lot more latitude if they include them in their estimates than if they don't.

But I find myself wondering if it might be too soon to be pressuring management or asking that management publicly commit to either a we-are-going-to-mining or to a we-are-looking-for-TO-offers position. Reason and data strongly suggest their is a very significant resource at Manono and Kitololo but it is still the case I presume that AVZ management don't know all of the details of what they have because the drills and assays will actually be confirming things for them too. I think it is probably fair comment that in the details they aren't holding back on us, the are waiting just as we are. Nigel's 'batting away' offers statement 'because it was too soon' (and I'm assuming the offers were too correspondingly low) seems consistent with this view. Put to much pressure on the Management team to go public with one or the other direction might effectively mean pressure is being put on them to prefer a sooner rather than later low price TO - when that probably isn't the best outcome for investors.

Management has share price incentives that kick in above the 30cent TO figure you mention so whilst I think I'd prefer management incentives linked to deliverables rather than a share price I still recognize that those incentives are better inducements to get the TO price higher if they want to go that way.

RE Tin credits. If I follow you arguments correctly tin and lithium products are not currently producable from the same starting volumes - so tin credits are actually not credits. Either you produce tin from your dug hole and treat the lithium as waste or you produce lithium and the tin is waste - on current tech. Could be wrong on that - but that is what I've understood you to be saying. And you point out Greenbush's use mine from two holes.

Dr_Manhattan, another poster whose research I respect is including tin credits in his reckoning of costs. Haven't checked yet why there appears to be a difference between you guys approach. But you seem to be saying tin is an alternative product from resource not a credit. Am I wrong on that?