Running discussion on SP, page-21005

@stakx was one of the most positive posters on AVZ in the past, and I think personally he is becoming conservative like myself given his last few posts of late. Missed timelines are an issue here and always have been for AVZ as I have posted in the past.

The market does not wait - AVZ need to get their crap together or they will miss entry into the market by 2025, and in part the reason for where the SP is IMO. I suspect the market doesn't think AVZ will get to market by 2025 as I posted in the past, and my personal view is if AVZ can get their crap together they will enter the market between 2022 - 2025 (Post #: 37647762 and Post #: 37831890). It is why I started the "Understanding Lithium Demand" thread - to demonstrate that AVZ can enter the market pre 2025 (if it gets its ducks to line up).

The actual key to draining the lake, which is the former open pit mine now flooded - is in a previous Ann - page 14 - 17 of the Sept 2018 Scoping Study Post #: 36050143 and this Ann of the 5MTPA study in May 2019 at page 13 - 16 Post #: 38703355 . The need to drain the pit is to testthe pegamtites within it, as from recollection it is envisaged that will be the 1st ore feed, in addition to testing the strength of the pit wall (been the flooded open pit wall ). Be mindful the resource under the 'lake' and first likely to be mined is still in the inferred category, whilst the measured and indicated resource, which is the basis of a bankable study as you don't mine an inferred resource, is outside the existing flooded open pit. Obviously draining the previous open pit, now flooded, is a key, plus doing some drilling in their to get a measured and indicated resource as that we give you the optimal mine plan for a bankable study IMO, and certainly there is a need to test whether the pit walls of the open pit (flooded now which I call a lake) are still good and haven't been impacted by water.

Assuming the resource under the lake, been the previous open pit mine, is as good as elsewhere at Roche (i.e. which is likely IMO but teh drill bit to confirm) and the pit wall is still good, well "Bob's your uncle" in terms of a more speedier approach to mining - will certainly save a few months worth of work and also doesn't mean you have initial overburden to remove to reach your mineable ore. The latter, because the pegmatites at Roche are weathered at the top and the good spod starts around 40 metres down by the looks of it (i.e. probably the depth of the previous open pit where dewatering is required meaning if can start where that pit is you are straight into the pegmatites themselves).

In other words draining the lake is a key to your DFS options, so delaying the drainage means you have to think about a new mine plan, or make assumptions on the mine plan if want the DFS out in December. I suspect personally that GRE will probably suggest starting the pit outside the lake area in my opinion, depending on timeline (which in away translates to a higher capex cost as well, hence IMO teh issue with delaying dewatering).

Why it has taken them so long to start the drainage is another question by the way, noting AVZ have known the need to do this since at least the middle of last year when drill results were coming in and certainly AVZ knew about it at the Sept 2018 scoping study stage as per the embedded post above.

The sooner AVZ get a Chairman IMO who understands finance and getting a development to market on time the better.

VB drunk, rant given, new VB requires opening.

All IMO