PMT Megathread, page-161

Thanks Money of Mine podcast…as I said on another post, I’m really enjoying the content and interviews.
I agree that yes in general there are differences in the nature, style and content between ASX and TSX exploration reports…this can take a while to get used to, both for investors and for companies making the move between the two to find the right balance.

@travmoneyofmine I disagree with some of your comments and line of questioning in this episode.
Firstly, the quote about the ‘10 million ounces gold discovery’ has definitely been taken out of context…
Listening to the source interview, the use of the word ‘equivalent’ was in the context of saying PMT’s market cap is comparatively low, compared with other Australian-based equivalent lithium hard-rock discoveries.
He then went on to say…‘to put that in perspective’ and goes on to use the hypothetical gold example IN Canada as a way of highlighting that Canadians and North American investors are more familiar with gold relative to lithium as a way of helping explaining the disparity in PMT’s MC. Having listened to it…I don’t see how this can be misinterpreted as any kind of direct equivalent comparison…unless it’s taken out of context.

On the topic of cross-sections. Personally, I have no issue with BW’s decision not to include any cross-sections at this stage. Given the pinch-swell nature of pegmatites, combined with the inherent internal grade variability related to changes in temperature, chemistry, pressure and physical flow processes….so showing one or two sections (even if these are better drilled) is somewhat meaningless along strike or down-dip….so by including them at this point IS misleading (for better or worse).
Representative drill sections that accompany a mineral resource with sufficient drill density across a given volume…. different story, and absolutely required and expected. Again, this should not just be the thickest or highest grades, but representative sections across the MRE.

Given PMT have provided full drilling detail that can be downloaded and loaded straight into any modelling software….this alone is far greater benefit than ANY cross-section! Keeping in mind that the vast majority of companies only provide drilling details in pdf form, often spread over dozens of announcements, with changes in formatting and included information over the life of a project….getting this into 3D is usually a very time consuming task.
What PMT are providing by combined drilling results into a downloadable excel file via the website is way beyond industry standard. More companies should do it!
I accept that many investors are not necessarily in a position to take a drill hole datapack and turn that into a 3d model, and therefore plan views, cros-sections and long projections are required...but BW's point about early cross-sections in many cases being misleading is just as valid.

I also don't see the issue of including photos of core for context?
The exception being, if the photos are just a one-off closeup of a mineral phase that is not representative of the overall mineralised interval. But a mixture of full-scale core tray photos AND close-ups is the next best thing to seeing the core with your own eyes…this is incredibly valuable for investors (or interested parties)…I really don’t understand what you are implying by saying this is ‘spivvy as hell’? can you elaborate how or why?
IMO it allows you to form your OWN early views on mineralisation; spodumene abundance and continuity, grain-size variation and relation, gangue mineralogy and surrounding rock quality (i.e. the mineralogy) rather that just reading someone else description. And its this mineralogy that will ultimately underpin the eventual mining, comminution, processing, and recoveries of the deposit (should it get to that point)....so in that regard being able to visualise the mineralogy in sufficient detail is a useful way to help assess project quality.

Disclaimer...non holder, just interested.