Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-122

It's important not to conflate the greed of the directors with the prospects of the company. These are separate issues and need to be treated differently. I'm voting against resolutions 3, 4 and 5 to issue performance rights to directors as, like others, I see this as a greedy grab for cash at the expense of other shareholders.

But this is a different issue to the company's overall prospects in my view. If you mix the two together you risk making the wrong decision. There are many risks with exploration companies with geological risk or the risk of finding anything at the end of the drill bit being about the biggest. Unlike most explorers, AZL doesn't have this risk. There are 4 million tonnes of LCE at Prairie and there will be something the same at least at Big Sandy - you can see the green tinged lithium enriched clay sitting on the ground. Eight million tonnes LCE is around $400 billion of inground value. Plus Lordsburgh. It's hard to see any other lithium explorer with this type of value in my view. The other big risk in junior explorers is 'execution risk' and this is the biggest hurdle faced by AZL in my view. Can they secure the permit and get the Hualapai people on side? They haven't managed this so far but this doesn't mean they can't achieve this and a solution is just around the corner. But we don't know the outcome and it is what I'm betting on here, not how much lithium there is in the ground. AIMHO.