RE: How else can you play the #Tin move on AIM?!3 Jun 2026 16:30
1. “⚡ A Tier-1 lithium discovery being advanced alongside SQM”
What is true
• Andrada has entered into an earn-in partnership with SQM on the Lithium Ridge project in Namibia, with SQM potentially investing up to US$40 million for a 50% interest.
• SQM is one of the world’s largest lithium producers and is actively funding exploration at Lithium Ridge.
Potential exaggeration
“Tier-1 lithium discovery”
This is the weakest part of the statement.
• There is currently no published JORC-compliant resource for Lithium Ridge that would allow it to be classified as a Tier-1 deposit.
• Andrada itself has referred to Lithium Ridge as having the potential to become a world-class resource, but that is an aspiration rather than a demonstrated fact.
More accurate wording
“A promising lithium project being explored in partnership with SQM.”
2. “⚡ A tungsten resource with grades around 10x higher than Tungsten West’s historic operation”
What is true
Tungsten West’s Hemerdon deposit is indeed low-grade by global standards:
• Hemerdon resource grade is approximately 0.12% WO₃.
Andrada’s Uis tungsten grades reported from various zones are materially higher than Hemerdon’s.
Potentially misleading part
“10x higher than Tungsten West’s historic operation”
The issue is what is being compared. If someone compares:
• Hemerdon: ~0.12% WO₃
• Selected Andrada drill intercepts or higher-grade zones: ~1.0–1.2% WO₃
then “10x” can be mathematically true.
However:
• It is usually not appropriate to compare a project’s best drill results with another project’s resource grade.
Without specifying exactly which Andrada tungsten grade is being used, the statement is potentially misleading because it may imply the entire Andrada tungsten resource is 10× richer than Hemerdon.
More accurate wording
“Certain Andrada tungsten zones have reported grades significantly higher than Hemerdon’s average resource grade.”
3. “⚡ Additional exploration upside across a district-scale land package”
What is true
This is broadly supported.
* Andrada controls a large licence position around Uis.
* The company has identified numerous pegmatites across the licence area.
* Only a relatively small portion of the licence has been systematically explored.
For example:
* The Uis licence covers roughly 19,700 hectares.
* Andrada has identified about 180 pegmatites.
* The current resource is derived from only a small fraction of the overall land package.
Potential exaggeration
The phrase “district-scale” is promotional but not unreasonable.
In mining, “district-scale” usually implies:
* very large contiguous land holdings,
* multiple mineralised systems,
* scope for repeated discoveries.
Andrada’s ground position is large enough that many analysts and mining companies would use that term.
This is probably the least problematic statement of the three.
More accurate wording
“Substantial exploration potential remains across Andrada’s large licen
Sign In
Follow the stocks
