I thought I would share some research I have undertaken to increase my knowledge of Li projects. The two I chose are deposits for PLS and LTR which have 100mt Li deposits. They will assist my understanding of AZS Li results and potential.
I went through all their announcements and some presentations over the first few years of their exploration, including when purchased, rock chip results, amount of drilling program, drilling results and MRE estimates in initial years of drilling. I have not analysed the length of drilling results as there is nothing to compare to for AZS.
Key observations:
1.The area over which AZS pegmatites exists (9km by 5km) is larger than the PLS and LTR main projects
2.Rock chip results for AZS are more impressive than for both PLS and LTR (i.e., more higher-grade results over 2% and 3%). For example, LTR only had 1 result over 3% with the number of rock chips nowhere as many as AZS, PLS had 45% of 424 rock chips over 1.5% but only maybe about 10 over 2.5%.
3.Drilling programs started at 10km for PLS and continued at 10km programs for quite a while. PLS seem to have drilled about 35km to go from a resource of 8.66mt at 1.0% Li (historical result before PLS purchased the project) to 80mt @1.26% after 13 months of drilling. First updated MRE was after 4 months of drilling (less than 10km of drilling)
4.Drill results come out frequently for both LTR and PLS (eg sometimes twice a month) and so do MREs.
5.LTR established major resources after 48km of drilling for 75mt @1.3% after 29 months of drilling. They started off with a few small drilling programs and then increased them significantly. LTR first MRE was after they drilled 17.5km.
6.Both LTR and PLS started SS/PFS work quite quickly (LTR after 20km drilling and after first MRE or 18 months) and PLS after drilling about 11km (about 7 months after first drill program)
7.It seems the widths of the rock chip pegmatite areas for PLS and LRT did not exceed about 30m (if they did, I could not find any evidence unless I missed it). I noticed that AZS widths are up to 100m.
Some obvious observations from my research re AZS Li project:
·The extremely early results for AZS compare at least favourable to, and probably better, than LTR and PLS results (noting no drill results are yet available for AZS). It is unwise to place much weight on this observation as they only reference rock chip results, the initial size of areas with known rock chip pegmatites and also the width of pegmatites.
·It seems possible for AZS to complete the 40km program in CY 2023 (noting the initial program is much bigger than PLS and LTR initial programs)
·Once results start emerging (e.g. after say for 30 holes) we will have a potential indication whether the AZS Li project has any significant potential for a decent resource – that should be in in the next 3 months). It will take until end of 3rd or early 4th quarter before we know if it has a large or small potential MRE. AZS should be able to set out a target MRE in the 4th quarter or maybe earlier (other than the 100mt one they have)
·It is possible that AZS may have an initial MRE by end of 3rd quarter CY 2023 and definitely by 4th quarter of 2023, but it does depend on a variety of factors (eg speed of drilling, lab delays, quality of results, etc).
·Is it possible AZS is sitting on a 100mt resource? – obviously far too early to assess (extremely early signs are favourable but could end up a dud). We should have a better idea by end of 2023. Having SQM is a big positive though.
·The size of the MRE from the full 40km program depends on the drilling results. If the drill results are good and comparable to either LTR or PLS then a major MRE is possible in 2024, maybe even 1st quarter CY 2024
·The 2 drill hole widths of 20m and 27m are comparable with the results of both PLS and LTR – both had much smaller intersections and also many wider ones. I cannot rate them as exceptional in length. However, if the results show an average of 2% or higher across both intercepts then they would be above average based on PLS and LTR results.
Investing in grass roots mining explorers, like AZS, is extremely risky and failures are many times more common than successes in drilling good results (maybe only 1 in 1,000 discoveries end up in production). Investors need to understand this very simple fact and if they don't, they should probably not invest in grass root mining explorers.
No matter how good the management of a grass roots explorer is, if the rocks do not contain the minerals, despite good early indications, then blaming management is just plain wrong.
AZS is no different.
Ultimately it is up to each individual investor to assess whether they wish to accept that risk and buy shares in AZS. I have accepted that risk with my eyes wide open.
If AZS end up with favourable drill results with a decent Li deposit, the shares will be off to the races in 2023.
