Banter and general comments, page-27

There only seems to be one outcrop wider than the ~110m at AP0012, and that does not have any rock chips over 0.4%. Unfortunately most of the wider outcrops you are likely referring to, are to the south and east of the mineralised pegmatites. These are closer to the (likely) parental granite, and this factor along with all the rock chips grading <0.4% Li2O, indicates that they are likely barren or not fractionated enough to host economic Li/spd. There is a reason that AP0012 is being targeted first.


There is sometimes a large discrepancy between the width of pegmatite intercepts, and what widths are actually economically mineralised with spod (according to assays). Refer to the cross section I posted earlier, this seems to be happening here - the portion of pegmatite in AD0203 containing visible spodumene is only like 30m total, out of a 53m pegmatite intercept. The rest of the intercepts have a small length of visible spodumene compared to the length of intersected pegmatite - maybe like 10 metres (out of 40m) in AD0204 and others. If you can't see visual spod mineralisation in a length of the core, that length is not going to return an economic Li concentration in assay. This could mean a result of, ~30m @ 1-2% Li2O, even if the original pegmatite intersept was 53m wide in AD0203.

Also, unless you just mean you want to see what the body looks like when they drill closer to surface, along dip - then I'm not sure what you're talking about in regard to your comments on how they are only drilling the "edge of the outcrop" and not yet "under". They have intersected pegmatite as close to perpendicular to the dip of the pegmatite as they can. Why would they drill deep directly underneath the outcrop, or god forbid the south side, if they've already found that the body dips to the north underground. What they have intersected so far is very likely the main pegmatite body.
I'd like to add that there is an important difference between collective in-hole intersections and individual intersections. Adding up the intersection and saying it's 70m is not representative of what widths assays will show.


Pegmatites are rarely like icebergs. What about all the outcrops that have a large surface expression but thin or feather out below (like what AZS is showing so far)? In an ideal world, pegmatitic dykes maintain the dimensions of their surface expression down-dip, unless there is an unusual deformation beneath the surface where the original melt was able to easily fill it out. There hasn't been anything shared that might cause this at Andover. The surface expression depends on how long ago the pegmatite exhumed and the amount of erosion, and deposition of sediments since then.

I didn't intend to come across the wrong way, I am just looking for more evidence to back up what you're saying. Either way I am happy to see what the drill comes up with, and good luck to all.