AZS Media related thread, page-282

Reply to @calmbeforestorm

As anticipated.

I don't have the time to post about everything you say on HC that I disagree with.

To answer your question, obviously I disagreed with the post that I was replying to - your use of that article as a crutch, again, to justify yourself.

But now that you mention the article, you do quote and loudly applaud this comment:

"Analysts are spruiking Andover as having the potential to bring lithium supply into equilibrium."

WOW. Really? As the master of research, you would know which analysts are saying that? Source please?

And also then you quote and applaud this comment:

"The potential deposit of 150mt to 240mt is unprecedented"

Really? As the master of lithium comparatives, that's not true is it? There are precedents for same or bigger deposits aren't there.

Actually, did you even read the article with a single ounce of critical thought?

"17000m drilled" - at the time of the article we had drilled twice those metres hadn't we. And:

"Three target areas (TA1, TA2,TA3) are being drilled by Azure, and significant intercepts and grades have been found" - I missed the TA2 and TA3 results, and well that we have even started at TA3!!!! We haven't have we.

At that stage I stopped reading.

But I noticed the intersections graph. Firstly, the methodology is to break a drill hole down into each and every individual mineralised interval, to the centimetre, that's novel and very funny. But then I look for and see only a few metres for our mega Hole 223. WTF, where's our 100m (95m TW) interval? Remember, this monster:



Oops, not there is it:



Oh well, it's only 100m of spod mineralisation, who cares?

Good stuff, thanks for posting.

BTW, why don't you source any of these articles you post. When I googled this one I couldn't find it. Haven't retried.

Finally, the mean girls (mostly on ignore now) name calling won't ever stop me posting what and when I choose, and exactly who in here is the "clown" is settled.

GLTAH!