BLM email Response, page-82

lifefree I love constructive discussion where the risk and reward proposition of a company/project are discussed in an open and honest way. Every investor should know the risks involved in their investment and what management are doing to address the risks. Independent thoughts and different perspectives should definitely be brought to this forum.

You say: "Bradda Head has projects in other states (as does AZL, but just one). They can stand by and follow AZL's lead. Failure costs them nothing; success, if any, starts where AZL has paved the way (of course, they don't pave, they use the dry washes)."

This contradicts everything you have said over the last few weeks about water rights and scarcity. I agree that obtaining water rights is one of the main risks for the Big Sandy project and from what I can see management is doing a lot to address that risk, from both a supply (raising funds to purchase water rights) and demand (significantly reducing water consumption in their processing) perspective.

One could argue that if AZL "pave the way" then AZL will have first mover advantage on the water rights, giving them a higher chance of securing water. If water is a zero sum game like you suggest then if AZL secure rights first it will be more tricky for other mining groups in the area to secure theirs.

If I was trying to manipulate facts and use emotive language to up or down ramp then I would start saying things like:
- AZL are years ahead of Bradda Heads
- Bradda Heads have an extremely low grade resource of 818ppm compared to AZLs 1850ppm
- Lower grade means more processing costs (including key cost drivers of sulphuric acid and water) to get the same result
- Bradda Heads are unlikely to be able to secure water rights if AZL have already purchased such a significant volume
- Bradda Heads might not even be economical since their processing costs will be significantly more than AZLs
- If Bradda Heads can turn a profit then that would imply AZL (on a much higher margin) would be making significantly more profit
- Bradda Heads could spend millions exploring their holding, then end up going in to liquidation because they can't take the project to market
- AZL as a cashed up next door neighbour could acquire their land holding (with a JORC resource already defined) for a bargain

Of course most of those dot points are wild speculation and manipulation of facts that I think this forum could do without.