NICO RESOURCES LIMITED - Capital/Financing Update 2024

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

ASX Announcement
----- End of picture text -----

Wingellina Resource Update Provides Framework for Optimised Mine Planning

Nico Resources Limited (“ Nico ” or the “ Company ”) (ASX: NC1) is pleased to announce the completion of an update to the Wingellina Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) by Independent Consultants ERM Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) (formerly CSA Global).

The 2024 Wingellina global Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) within the limits of drilling information, and within the envelope of nickel mineralisation at a cut-off of 0.4% Ni, is 187.3Mt at 0.91% Ni and 0.06% Co for 1.7Mt of contained nickel metal.

Classification	Tonnes (Mt)	Ni (%)	Ni metal (Kt)	Co (%)	Co metal (Kt)
Indicated	164.1	0.93	1,531	0.06	98
Inferred	23.3	0.72	166	0.03	7.3
Total	187.3	0.91	1,698	0.06	106

Note:

Heritage Exclusion areas have been excluded from the MRE.
Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding of appropriate significant figures .

Table 1. Mineral Resource statement for Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project at a 0.4% Ni cut-off

Highlights

Modelling and gap analysis has identified the opportunity to increase the Wingellina Resource with mineralisation remaining open at depth and along strike in some domains.
Results of the 2024 Independent MRE for the Wingellina deposit correspond closely with the previous in-house 2016 Resource Estimate of 182.6 Mt at 0.92% Ni and 0.07% Co completed by MetalsX Limited, which confirms the robustness of the global resource.
Regolith modelling confirms that Wingellina is an oxide dominant laterite deposit with 86% of the MRE modelled as limonite ore or transitional limonite ore. This supports the selection of high-pressure acid leach (“ HPAL ”) technology as the preferred processing pathway.
Detailed lithological modelling and enhanced understanding and modelling of regolith boundaries is a critical improvement from the previous Mineral Resource Estimates. This detailed modelling, combined with the updated grade estimate, will provide the foundation for material type definition and effective mine planning and optimisation studies.
Results from extensive bench-scale metallurgical testwork[2] nearing completion at ALS laboratories will be incorporated into the updated model to develop a working geo-metallurgical model.

Principal Business Address Level 6,190 St Georges Tce Perth WA 6000 Registered Address Level 8, 216 St Georges Tce Perth WA 6000

Nico Resources Limited Nicoresources.com.au ASX: NC1 T: +61 (08) 9481 0389 ABN 80 649 817 425 E: [email protected]

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Managing Director Comment

Nico’s Managing Director, Jonathan Shellabear said:

“ The modelling of the geology and regolith for a deposit the scale of Wingellina was no small task. Nico is very pleased with the outcome of the MRE update as it will provide the basis for the development of a detailed geo-metallurgical and mining model for the Wingellina project. The next step will be incorporate the recent and historical metallurgical testwork into the model, so scenarios and optimisations can be completed to determine an optimised schedule. This is a significant milestone to maximise the value from the resources at Wingellina. Nico continues to focus on low cost, high reward work programs that take advantage of the voluminous data and work undertaken on the project to increase our understanding of the orebody, before defining the most efficient path forward. Notwithstanding the current market conditions, Nico will continue to judiciously progress the world-class Wingellina project toward development”.

Overview

Wingellina is a world-class oxide-type nickel cobalt deposit located in the Musgrave Ranges of WA, approximately 100 kms east of BHP’s West Musgrave Project. Wingellina hosts an initial reserve of 1.56 million tonnes of contained nickel capable of producing approximately 40,000t of nickel and 3,000t of cobalt in a Mixed Hydroxide Precipitate (“ MHP ”) for at least 42 years. A detailed pre-feasibility study[1] , (“ PFS ”) completed on the Project in December 2022, confirmed Wingellina as a globally significant Tier 1 asset, characterised by its long life, low cost and high operating margins.

The MHP product contains essential critical minerals used in batteries and energy storage systems required for the global energy transition. Wingellina will play a critical role in the Australian Government’s strategy to create resilient and diverse supply chains, build Australian’s sovereign capability in critical minerals processing and create significant economic opportunities for regional and First Nations communities.

2016 and 2024 Resource Comparison

The 2016 MRE completed by MetalsX Limited and the 2024 Independent MRE for the Wingellina NickelCobalt Project compare very closely, with only a 2.6% difference in tonnes and a 1% difference in global Ni grade. This supports the conclusion that Wingellina has a robust global resource.

The key differences between the two MRE estimates are:

In the 2016 MRE, grades were estimated within a Ni mineralisation envelope without further domaining of geology and regolith. The 2024 MRE included additional geology and regolith domains. This was considered an important addition to achieve the best linear unbiased estimate of grade. Particularly with regards to elements critical to understand in the HPAL process such as MgO, Fe2O3, SiO2, Al2O3 and CaO. The additional domaining will also be used for the definition of material types. These will allow for optimised mine planning, particularly with respect to providing consistent feed to the proposed HPAL plant.

1 See ASX Announcement 22 December 2022 “PFS confirms Wingellina as a Tier 1 project capable of supplying decades on Nickel and Cobalt”.

2 See ASX Announcements 23 January 2024 “Wingellina Metallurgical Testwork Update”. 10 April 2024 “Wingellina Advances Metallurgical Testwork” and 27 June 2024 “Metallurgical Engineering delivers improved results for Wingellina”.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

The 2016 MRE classified approximately 20% of the resource in the Measured catagory. ERM Australia who conducted the 2024 MRE update, deemed that additional density data was required before any material could be classified as Measured and satisfy the requirements of the 2012 JORC code. As such previously Measured material has been reclassified as Indicated in the 2024 MRE.
Cobalt grades of Indicated Resources are 16% lower in the 2024 MRE compared to the 2016 MRE (0.07% Co in 2016 compared to 0.06% Co in 2024). This is a result of employing greater constraints on high grade Co mineralisation in the 2024 MRE estimation methodology. The outcome is a more conservative estimate of high-grade Co within the Ni mineralisation envelope.

	Year	Classification Tonnes (Mt) Ni (%) Ni Metal (t) Co (%) Co Metal (t) Measured 37.6 0.98 367,960 0.08 28,016 Indicated 130.9 0.91 1,193,482 0.07 94,605 Inferred 14.1 0.87 122,367 0.07 9,127 Total 182.6 0.92 1,683,810 0.07 131,749 Measured - - - - - Indicated 164.1 0.93 1,531,100 0.06 98,449.0 Inferred 23.3 0.72 166,405 0.03 7,304.0 Total 187.3 0.91 1,697,505 0.06 105,753
	2016 MRE
	2024 MRE

Note:

Heritage Exclusion areas have been excluded from the MRE 2. Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding of appropriate significant figures.

Table 2. 2016 and 2024 Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project MRE comparison

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

2024 Resource by Regolith Zone

Classified Resource for Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project, 0.4% Ni cut-off, by Regolith Zone

Regolith
Zone
Tonnes
(Mt)
Ni
(%)
Co
(%)
MgO
(%)
Fe2O3
(%)
SiO2
(%)
Al2O3
(%)
MnO2
(%)
CaO
(%)
LOI
(%)
Sc
(ppm)
Limonite
142.6
0.96
0.06
2.1
47.1
17.2
12.6
1.2
0.7
14.2
55
Transitional
Limonite
18.6
0.77
0.04
7.1
21.6
42
8.9
0.6
3.2
13.4
29
Saprolite
26.1
0.68
0.02
11.8
16.6
37.5
8.4
0.4
6.1
17
31
Total
187.3
0.91
0.06
4.0
40.3
22.5
11.7
1.0
1.7
14.5
49

Note:

Heritage Exclusion areas have been excluded 2. Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding of appropriate significant figures.

Table 3. 2016 and 2024 Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project MRE comparison by Regolith

Next Steps

The updated Wingellina Resource Model along with the results from recent metallurgical testwork will be used to create a geo-metallurgical model incorporating material types and geo-metallurgical parameters including beneficiation, mass rejection, upgrade, nickel and cobalt recovery and consumption of consumables (sulphuric acid, calcrete and magnesia).
The geo-metallurgical model will serve to identify knowledge gaps with regards to the processing characteristics of less studied material types. This will drive future bench-scale testwork programs, with an aim to further derisk the project.
The geo-metallurgical model will also be used to develop a mine plan and schedule to facilitate scenario planning and optimisation of the orebody to maximise value from the resources at Wingellina under various macro-economic assumptions.
Work programs will be developed to infill and extend existing drilling where required, including the collection of addition density data so Indicated Resources can be upgraded to Measured status in future MRE estimates.

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Competent Person’s Statement

The information in the report to which this statement is attached relates to Exploration Targets or Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr. M Jones, who is full time Employee of the company and also a Member of The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, with 20 years’ experience in the mining industry. Mr. Jones has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity, which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the “Australian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr Jones consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Felicity Hughes. Ms Hughes is a Principal Consultant of ERM and is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. She has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which Ms Hughes is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves (JORC Code). Ms Hughes consents to the disclosure of information in this report in the form and context in which it appears.

Forward-looking statements:

This announcement contains certain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical and consist primarily of projections — statements regarding future plans, expectations and developments. Words such as “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “may”, “could”, “potential”, “should”, “anticipates”, “likely”, and “believes” and words of similar import tend to identify forward-looking statements. All statements other than those of historical facts included in this announcement are forwardlooking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding plans, strategies and objectives, anticipated production and expected costs and projections and estimates of ore reserves and mineral resources. Indications of, and guidance on future earnings, cash flows, costs, financial position and performance are also forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks include, but are not limited to, exploration, development and operational risks. No independent third party has reviewed the reasonableness of any such statements or assumptions. None of the Company, their related bodies corporate and their respective officers, directors, employees, or advisers represent or warrant that such Forward Statements will be achieved or will prove to be correct or gives any warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, likelihood of achievement or reasonableness of any Forward Statement contained in this release.

The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this announcement, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws. Recipients should form their own views as to these matters and any assumptions on which any of the Forward Statements are based and not place undue reliance on such statements.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board.

Contacts

For more information, please visit our website www.nicoresources.com.au or email [email protected] .

Amanda Burgess Company Secretary

Jonathan Shellabear Managing Director

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 1

Summary of information required in accordance with ASX Listing Rule 5.8.1.

1. Overview

Nico Resources requested ERM Australia to undertake a phased program of work designed to facilitate completion of a DFS for the Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project.

The Project has undergone considerable previous work, up to a Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) stage in 2008 (Aker Solutions, 2008) which was updated in 2022. Since acquiring the Project, Nico completed a program of RC drilling in 2022 to infill and corroborate historical results in high-grade nickel and cobalt zones. The program ERM was engaged to complete is as follows:

An initial Gap Analysis to establish criteria required for an update of the MRE. This included a review of past QAQC assessments and statistical assessments of all types of drilling, as there was concern regarding the assay results from the considerable amount of historical RAB drilling used in previous estimates and the exhibited downhole grade smoothing effect.
Remodelling of the resource to include detailed and more appropriately defined regolith surfaces, more detailed geological modelling of the main lithologies, and geochemical modelling where appropriate of the major assays. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the distribution of mineralisation containing the nickel and cobalt, to enable definition of specific material types for optimal processing and metal extraction. Nico and ERM considered this to be the most critical and impactful aspect of the work to be completed.
An assessment of the geo-metallurgical properties to be undertaken (which has now commenced) to define the various material types and ore types. ERM’s experience is that nickel and cobalt laterites are composed of diverse material types which have specific properties directly relating to product recovery through the process plant. A review of available small-scale geo-metallurgical variability testwork and larger-scale metallurgical testwork will be completed, and together with the resource block model will form the foundation for developing a predictive ore control development model for mine planning, mining, and ore delivery for processing.

2. Geology and Geological Interpretation

Deposit Geology and Mineralisation

The Wingellina nickel-oxide deposits occur in deeply weathered ultramafic (olivine-rich) members of the Hinckley Range Gabbro, a component of the Giles Complex within the Musgrave Block of central Australia.

The Giles Complex is a series of mafic igneous rocks intruded into the gneissic basement rocks of the Musgrave block and consists of numerous separate intrusions of layered mafic and ultramafic lithologies. The Wingellina deposits lie within the Wingellina Hills, a northwest-trending mafic-ultramafic set of ridges and valleys containing pyroxenites, dunites and gabbros.

Layering in the intrusions was caused by fractionation and crystal settling within multiple successive magma injections. At Wingellina, this resulted in the formation of a series of ultramafic units overlain by

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

thin pyroxenites and mafic to leucocratic gabbros. Detailed core logging has shown that the rhythmic layering of the differentiated mafic-ultramafic sequence is present on a centimetre to 10 m scale, and compositional variation (both chemical and mineralogical) in the parent rock influences the composition of the weathered product.

Steeply southwest-dipping (75–85°) shear zones strike the length of the central part of the Wingellina Hills and affect the ultramafic units and the margins of most of the gabbro unit seen in outcrop. Shearing varies in intensity from strong to mylonitic, and has strongly influenced deep weathering, leaching and limonite formation. East-west sinistral brittle cross-structures are also present across the sequence and are seen to offset the geology in places.

==> picture [423 x 449] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Geological setting of the Wingellina Deposit.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Weathering

The Wingellina nickel-oxide mineralisation is a surficial, tropical laterite style of mineralisation developed over olivine-rich ultramafic stratigraphy. Strong shearing within the ultramafic has promoted deep weathering. The resistant gabbro ridges surrounding the laterites at Wingellina have protected the deposit from subsequent erosion.

The weathering profile at Wingellina is consistent with an oxide type of laterite (Elias, 2002). Oxide laterites are comprised largely of iron hydroxides and oxides in the upper part of the profile, with thin layers of altered magnesium silicates overlying fresh bedrock. The Wingellina laterite profile has well-defined regolith boundaries for oxide limonite, and a transitional zone between the iron-rich limonite and the magnesium-rich saprolite at depth.

The Wingellina nickel oxide resource consists of two main zones which contain several semi-linear north westerly striking sub-zones of limonitic (iron-rich) and lesser saprolitic (clay-rich) styles of laterite mineralisation.

The nickel mineralisation was produced by deep weathering, facilitated by shearing, of olivine-rich ultramafic units in the Wingellina Hills near the northern contact of the Hinckley Range gabbro. Olivine crystals within the ultramafic units originally contained background values of about 0.15% to 0.30% Ni. The almost complete removal of MgO and SiO2 by downward-percolating ground waters during weathering resulted in extreme volume reductions and consequently significant upgrading of Fe2O3, Al2O3 and nickel and cobalt in the weathered profile. The ultramafic units are deeply weathered into asymmetric troughlike shapes that are up to 250 m deep in places. The geological contacts between the completely weathered ultramafic units and the intervening gabbroidal units are transitional.

Geological Modelling

Limit of Drilling

A boundary was constructed which confined the drillholes to be used in the MRE (Figure 2). A 3D solid was constructed which was used to limit the drillhole assays and blocks in the model to be interpolated.

Topographic Surface

A topographic surface was created using a combination of 2 m contours where available, and surveyed points and drillhole collars to fill in the gaps.

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [415 x 405] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Limits of drillhole information used in the MRE.

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [418 x 328] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [419 x 282] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. Data used to create final topographic surface and final topographic surface.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Structural Models

The Wingellina deposit is crosscut with steeply west-dipping shear zones which have strongly influenced weathering, and which offset the geology in places.

Faults were initially modelled in Leapfrog software, and then imported into GEMS software to create 3D solids of fault blocks. These fault blocks can eventually be used as location markers to help track ore from mine to run-of-mine (ROM) to plant.

Preliminary statistical assessment indicated there was insufficient information to confidently conclude that each fault block was unique, so they were combined into three geographical structural domains - the North, Central and South domains.

==> picture [223 x 454] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [222 x 454] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4. Structural fault blocks and domains.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Regolith Models

The modelling of the weathering and regolith surfaces represents a significant difference to previous Mineral Resource estimations. An understanding of the changes in mineralogy containing nickel and cobalt with increasing weathering is the key to understanding metal recovery.

Three regolith surfaces were modelled using GEMS software and using a combination of assays including Ni, Co, Fe2O3, MgO, SiO2 and Al2O3:

Base of Limonite
Top of Saprolite (representing base of transitional limonite); and
Top of Saprock (defining Base of Saprolite).

3D solids were constructed between each set of surfaces in GEMS to define the regolith zones, summarised in the Table 4. below.

	Regolith Model Code Description Limonite 100 Above Base of Limonite surface Transitional 200 Between Base of Limonite and Top of Saprolite surfaces Saprolite 300 Between Top of Saprolite and Top of Saprock surfaces Saprock 400 Below Top of Saprock surface

Table 4. Regolith Models.

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 252] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5. East-west cross-section showing regolith surfaces and coded drillholes. Note: Grid squares are 200m by 200m .

Lithological Models

Lithological models for the ultramafic, mafic, jasper and western gneiss zones were based on surface geological mapping and drillhole data. Interpretation strings were constructed on every one of the 238 sections to maintain continuity. The interpretation was limited in some areas by a lack of assays usually employed to define lithology type, in particular Al2O3 and CaO. The lithology has been interpreted to dip between 75° and 85° in a local grid westerly direction.

Polygons were constructed in GEMS software and used to create 3D triangulated solids for the main lithological units.

	Regolith Model Code Ultramafic 1000 Mafic 2000 Gneiss 3000 Jasper 4000

Table 5. Lithological Models.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [142 x 417] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [145 x 417] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [148 x 417] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6. Modelled lithological zones.

Mineralisation Models

A review of the assay distributions within the regolith horizons concluded that the assay parameters apart from nickel and cobalt would be appropriately domained using a combination of the three structural domains and the four regolith zones. Nickel and cobalt would require separate mineralisation models to confine grade interpolations.

Nickel mineralisation is found as nickel-bearing minerals such as iron-oxides in limonite, magnesiumsilicates in saprolite, and several types of nickel-bearing clay minerals. It is relatively immobile and does not tend to form specific nickel minerals.

Cobalt is very mobile and tends to be closely associated with manganese-oxides, often at the water table level or redox boundary.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

At Wingellina, nickel is largely confined to the ultramafic units, although the boundaries between the ultramafics and mafics are not always sharply defined, partly due to lack of information, but also due to the more transitional effect of a layered intrusion, rather than the sharper boundaries often encountered in other nickel laterites where the protolith is a single ultramafic unit.

Cobalt appears to be concentrated largely in the core of the ultramafic units but can also be found in the mafics. There are also areas with high manganese which do not contain cobalt.

	Assay Model Code Description Nickel 10 Ni >0.4% Nickel 11 Ni <0.4% Cobalt 20 Co >0.03% Cobalt 21 Co < 0.03%

Table 6. Mineralisation Models.

Nickel

Preliminary statistical evaluation confirmed that a mineralisation indicator of around 0.4% Ni defined the envelope of nickel-bearing minerals, and this was used to model an upper and a lower nickel surface. The upper nickel surface is usually sharply defined and the lower nickel surface is usually gradational as weathering becomes less intense. The lower nickel surface was confined to 6 of 0.4% Ni at the base.

The two surfaces were used to create a 3D solid representing the envelope of nickel mineralisation >0.4%. Additional solids of internal low-grade nickel <0.4% were also constructed.

Cobalt

Preliminary statistical evaluation confirmed that a mineralisation indicator of around 0.03% Co defined continuous zones of cobalt mineralisation. These zones appear largely to be contained within the limonite, with a core of higher-grade cobalt gradually diminishing towards the transitional lithological boundaries between the ultramafic and mafic units.

The high-cobalt zones were modelled as 3D solids in GEMS software and used to constrain cobalt and manganese grade interpolations. This was a significant departure from how Co was modelled in the 2016 resource estimate, where it was modelled unconstrained within the Ni solids. This has most likely resulted in an overestimation of the high-grade Co. However, the 2024 model presents the possibility of infill and extension to existing Co mineralisation with further drilling.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 258] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7. Nickel mineralisation surfaces and solids.

==> picture [454 x 245] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8. Cobalt mineralisation surfaces and solids.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

3. Drilling Techniques

ERM reviewed the Nico database which includes all drilling up to December 2023. Considerable work had been done by previous owners of the Project to get accurate collar surveys of all historical holes. Where there was some doubt, holes were flagged in the database, and those holes were not used in previous or current MRE’s. Where doubt over assay accuracy was noted, these holes were also flagged in the database and not used for grade interpolations.

Drill holes considered unsatisfactory for use in any mineral resource estimation due to lack of confidence in the data were flagged in the database and not selected for further analysis. A summary of drilling used in the 2024 MRE is found in table 7 below.

A small portion of the data used in resource calculations at the Wingellina Project has been gathered from diamond core. This core is geologically logged prior to sampling. Data from diamond holes was used in geological interpretation and density determination but not in grade estimation.

Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling has been utilised extensively at Wingellina. From 2001 to 2008 drill cuttings were extracted from the RC return via cyclone. The underflow from each interval was transferred via bucket to a four-tiered riffle splitter, delivering approximately three kilograms of the recovered material into calico bags for analysis. The residual material was retained on the ground near each hole. Composite samples were obtained from the residue material for initial analysis, with the split samples remaining with the individual residual piles until required for re-split analysis or eventual disposal. A similar process was followed in subsequent drilling, the main difference being the use of a Cyclone cone splitter for drill rig sampling in the 2017, 2019 and 2022 programs. The three kilogram sample collected is considered representative of the full drill metre and is considered to be an industry standard for the deposit type. Sampling was guided by qualified field personnel.

All geology input is logged and validated by the relevant area geologists at the time of drilling, incorporated into this is assessment of sample recovery. No defined relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fine or coarse material been noted.

Drillhole spacing is generally on a nominal 120 m x 50 m grid. This has been infilled to 60 m x 50 m and 30 m x 25 m spacing in some areas. The data spacing is sufficient for both the estimation procedure and resource classification applied. 2017 - 2022 drilling was largely designed to infill to high grade zones on 50 m x 25 m spacings.

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

	Year Company Drill Type Holes Metres 1965 - 1970 INCO Becker 98 3,030 1965 - 1970 INCO RAB 2,285 82,369 2001 - 2002 Acclaim RC 65 12,843 2004 Metals X RC/DD 2 798 2005 - 2007 Metals X RC 567 41,738 2010 Metals X RC 11 925 2017 - 2019 Metals X RC 66 4,044 2022 NC1 RC 152 7,862 Total 3,246 153,609

Table 7. Summary of drillholes used for 2024 MRE.

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [229 x 491] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9. Drillhole phases at Wingellina.

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

4. Sampling and Subsampling Techniques

Assays

A variety of drilling methods were employed by INCO, including churn drilling (102 holes), DDH (19 holes), Rotary Air Blast (RAB) drilling (2,643 holes), Vacuum (77 holes) and Becker drilling (102 holes). For this historical drilling a sample of each 5ft of drilling were quartered and forwarded for assay, either to AMDEL in Adelaide, or to INCO’s in-house laboratory at Blackstone.

Samples of RC drilling taken prior to 2006 were composited on 3 or 4m basis, and the composite assayed. A 1m riffle-split sample was also taken for each metre drilled and was submitted for analysis if the composite assayed >0.4% Ni. Sub sampling for the 2006-2016 RC drilling were riffle split each 2m sample drilled. Sub sampling for 2017-2022 RC drilling involved all two-metre splits from the drill holes being passed through a cone splitter to produce a 7.5% representative sample for assaying.

To monitor the quality of sampling at the rig and performance of the analytical laboratory, quality control (QC) samples were submitted at regular intervals. Duplicate samples were taken approximately every 20 samples using a secondary sample chute on the cone splitter. A single standard with known metal content created by GeoStats was inserted into the sample sequence approximately every alternate 20 samples. Blanks were incorporated into the sampling procedure. Intertek undertook their own internal checks and blanks.

No significant QAQC issues have been detected during supervision of sampling or interrogation of QC sample results. Twinned holes have been drilled in several instances across all sites with no significant issues highlighted.

ERM has reviewed both the historical and more recent quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) and has concluded that a reasonable level of confidence can be placed on the precision and accuracy of the assay data used in the preparation of this MRE and that there are no major issues with the global assessment of resources.

Density

Previous resource estimates for Wingellina have used global density values based on limited numbers of density determinations, largely from diamond core. Different density methods have been used over the history of the Project, with the methodology of early determinations not always documented in detail. A summary of all density work carried out on the Wingellina nickel laterite resource was completed by Metals X in 2007. The only density work after this date was undertaken on four bulk sample Bauer drillholes completed in 2013. These holes only represent limonite material types as they were only drilled to just above the water table (30 m depth).

Metals X summarised the investigations completed by various companies over the 50-year history of exploration of the Wingellina nickel deposit from 1958 to 2007. It highlighted the variability of the methodologies used and the variability of the results. It was concluded that the measurements taken from diamond drill core in 2007 were the most appropriate estimation of density for the deposit obtained at that time.

In the 2024 MRE, density values were assigned to each of the main regolith zones based on the assessment carried out in the Gap Analysis. An attempt was made to correlate density with logged lithologies, but as

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

there was insufficient information for both inputs, the density values were coded for regolith domains and an average density value for each domain was calculated from 2007 diamond core density determinations.

	Regolith Density value (t/m3) Limonite 1.26 Transitional 1.37 Saprolite 1.55 Saprock 2.05

Table 8. Density values by regolith domain.

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 416] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [200 x 416] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10. Location of 2007 density drilling.

5. Sample Analysis Method

Samples of INCO’s drilling were dried and assayed by AAS either at AMDEL in Adelaide, or at INCO’s inhouse laboratory at Blackstone. The digest method was not specified. Samples were assayed for Ni, Co and Fe. Analytical quality control was maintained by the insertion of standard samples and re-analysis of duplicates at separate laboratories at a frequency of two check analyses for every twenty samples.

Composite samples of RC drilling completed in 2001 were submitted to AMDEL, dried and pulverised, and assayed for Ni, Co, Ag, As, Bi, Cu, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Pb, S, Sb, Ti, V, Zr, Ca and Al by HF-multi-acid digest / ICPOES. The 1m riffle-splits for any composite sample assaying >0.4%Ni were retrieved, and re-assayed using the same method.

Composite samples from 2002-2004 were assayed for Al, Ca, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, Ti by borate fusion ICPOES, and for Ag, As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S, Sb, V, Zr by HF-multi-acid digest / ICP-OES.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

During 2005 two-metre composite riffle-split (or spear-sampled for wet samples) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each 2m composite sample was dried and pulverised to a nominal 90 per cent passing 75 microns and analysed for As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S and Zn by ICP-OES. Samples returning >0.4%Ni were re-assayed for Ni, Co, Al2O3, CaO, K2O, Fe2O3, MgO, MnO, Na2O, SiO2, V2O5, TiO2, Cr, SO3, Cu, Zn by fused disc XRF.

2005-2016 two-metre composite riffle-split (or spear-sampled) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each sample was pulverised to nominal 90 per cent passing 75 micron for analysis for assay for Ni, Co, Al2O3, SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, MnO, CaO, K2O, MgO, SO3, Na2O, V2O5, Cr, Cu and Zn by fused disc XRF. Duplicate samples were taken by spearing the sample pile on the ground approximately every 20 samples, and an in-house standard was inserted into the sample run every alternate 20 samples.

2017 and 2019 RC drilling and sampling was completed as per 2005-2016 but with the use of a cone splitter instead of a riffle splitter. 2022 RC drilling produced samples that were collected at two-metre intervals using a cone splitter to produce an approximate three-kilogram sample, which is considered representative of the full drill metre. This is considered to be an industry standard. Sampling was guided by qualified field personnel. All samples were sent to Intertek Laboratories (Perth or Kalgoorlie). Samples were analysed for a standard 18 element XRF Ni laterite suite (FB1/XRF - Al2O3, CaO, Co, Cr2O3, Cu, Fe2O3, K2O, LOI, MgO, MnO, Na2O,, Ni, P2O5, SO3, Sc, SiO2, TiO2, Zn) on all of the samples and an Aqua Regia digestion/ ICP MS (AR25/MS) multi-element suite on approximately half of the samples (Au, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Hf, Hg, In, K, La, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Pd, Pt, Rb, Re, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn, Zr). Sample weights ranged from 1 – 3kg. Samples were dried, crushed and pulverised to minus 75 microns. Analysis was undertaken using both XRF and Aqua Regia digestion/ ICP MS. Both are considered accepted industry analytical process appropriate for the nature and style of mineralisation under investigation. Blanks and standards were incorporated into the sampling procedure. Intertek undertook their own internal checks and blanks. No significant QA/QC issues have arisen in recent drilling results. These assay methodologies are appropriate for the resource in question.

6. Estimation Methodology

Software

Geological modelling, data flagging, data coding, block model creation and data unfolding procedures were undertaken in GEMS software (version 6.8.2.2). Grade interpolation and model validation were undertaken in Datamine Studio RM software (version 1.13.202.0). Variography was undertaken in Snowden’s Supervisor software (Version 8.15.2).

Domaining

After validating the drillhole data to be used in the estimation, interpretation of the orebody was undertaken in sectional and/or plan view to create the outline strings which form the basis of the 3D orebody wireframes. Wireframing was carried out using a combination of automated stitching algorithms and manual triangulation to create an accurate 3D representation of the subsurface mineralised body.

Drillhole intersections within the mineralised body were defined, these intersections were then used to flag the appropriate sections of the drillhole database tables for compositing purposes. Analysis of sample length statistics from the GEMS drillhole table was undertaken to determine an appropriate composite

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

length for grade interpolation. Results showed that the bulk of the sample lengths (~90%) were at 1.5 m or 2.0 m intervals. Based on this, a 2.0 m length was chosen for compositing. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation.

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Geostatistical Analysis

Prior to geostatistical analysis and grade interpolation, the composited data were “unfolded” to facilitate better continuity and extension for the analyses. The GEMS “Unwrinkle” process has been developed to deal with relatively gentle undulations and faulting. It places data points in a transformed space in which the original spatial relationship is maintained, for analysis and interpolation. It then back-transforms the estimates into their original space. The process is applied both to the input composites and to the coded block models.

Once the sample data had been composited and “unfolded”, a statistical analysis (using Snowden Supervisor Version 8.15.2) was undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top cuts, etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains was undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters.

A total of six domain groupings were determined based on analysis of the box plots and contact plots. Estimation domain codes for (ESTDOMs) were subsequently applied to the samples file for the six groupings. Additional domain grouping codes (EDADOMs) were also applied in the estimation domains where sufficient samples were not available to undertake reliable statistical analysis.

Analysis of grade outliers was undertaken to ensure that extreme grades are treated appropriately during grade estimation. Although extreme grade outliers within the grade populations of variables are real, they are potentially not representative of the volume they inform during estimation. If these values are not capped, they have the potential to result in significant grade over-estimation on a local basis.

Following grade capping, analysis of data clustering was undertaken to ensure that representative histograms were obtained for use in global grade validation of grade estimates. Analysis was completed for the economic variables of interest (nickel and cobalt), and the non-economic variables (Sc, Cr2O3, Fe2O3, MnO2, TiO2, SiO2, Zn, Cu, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, LOI) within their geostatistical domains. A cell declustering approach was adopted to determine the optimum cell size for all variables. Analysis was undertaken in “real space” in Datamine Studio software.

Subsequent to grade capping analysis, variogram models were completed for the economic variables of interest (nickel and cobalt), and the non-economic variables (Sc, Cr2O3, Fe2O3, MnO2, TiO2, SiO2, Zn, Cu, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, LOI) within their geostatistical domains. Geostatistical domains were combined for variogram analysis in cases where either insufficient samples were available for a reliable analysis, or the domains were volumetrically minor and/or of no economic significance. A normal-scores transform of the capped composite data was used to develop the variogram models for all variables. Analysis and modelling were undertaken in “unfolded space” using Snowden Supervisor software. No weightings were applied to the variables before generation of the variogram models.

ERM adopted the following approach for variogram modelling:

A normal-scores transform was applied to the original data distribution;
Directions of continuity were established using variogram maps;
Downhole variograms, constrained by drillhole name, were created to establish the nugget values;
Directional variograms were then created and modelled using the principal directions established from the variogram maps and the nugget value obtained from the downhole variogram;

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

The variogram models were subsequently back transformed into real space before being exported in ASCII format to the Datamine resource macro code.

==> picture [456 x 327] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11. Variogram maps for nickel, North Block, limonite high-grade geostatistical domain.

Quantitative Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (QKNA)

QKNA was undertaken to assess the effect of changing key kriging neighbourhood parameters on block grade estimates. Analysis was completed for the economic variables of interest (nickel and cobalt) within their respective Geostatistical domains. All QKNA was undertaken in “unfolded space” using Datamine Studio software.

The objective of the analysis was to find a balance between minimising conditional bias and allowing practical block selectivity. The Kriging Efficiency (KE) and Slope of Regression (SOR) were determined for a range of each of the parameters.

Block size
Minimum/maximum samples
Search size
Block discretisation.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

QKNA results were broadly similar between the geostatistical domains within each model area. The QKNA results were used in conjunction with the common drill grid spacings and the nature of the mineralisation within each project area to determine final estimation parameters.

Parameter
Primary
(Pass 1)
Secondary
(Pass 2)
Tertiary
(Pass 3)
Fill (Pass 4)
Input data
Drillhole
Drillhole
Drillhole
Drillhole
Estimation Method
OK and
ID1
OK and ID1
OK and ID1
OK and ID1
Search ellipse size X (m)
70
140
210
600
Search ellipse size Y (m)
70
140
210
600
Search ellipse size Z (m)
6
12
18
18
Parent block size X (m)
10
10
10
10
Parent block size Y (m)
20
20
20
20
Parent block size Z (m)
2
2
2
2
Minimum no. of samples
12
12
8
4
Maximum no. of samples
20
20
20
16
Maximum no. of samples per
drillhole
4
4
4
4
Block discretisation
4
4
4
4

Table 9. Estimation search parameters for ESTDOM1 geostatistical domain.

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Block Model

Model prototype parameters, including block dimensions and model extents are shown in Table 9 and Table 10. The block model is not rotated and does not contain sub-cells. Due to the limited amount of critical assay information necessary to define regolith and lithological boundaries, the use of sub-celling was not considered an enhancement to grade interpolation.

	Coordinate X (Easting) Y (Northing) Z (RL) Origin (minimum extent) 46000 72000 160 Maximum extent 53000 85500 750 Range (m) 7,000 13,500 590 Largest (parent) cell 10 20 2 Smallest sub-cell n/a n/a n/a No. of parent cells 700 675 295

Table 10. Block model summary – real space model.

Grade Interpolation

All grade interpolation was undertaken in Datamine Studio software. Grade interpolation was completed for the economic variables of interest (nickel and cobalt), and the non-economic variables (Sc, Cr2O3, Fe2O3, MnO2, TiO2, SiO2, Zn, Cu, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, LOI) within their geostatistical domains. Final grades were interpolated via ordinary kriging (OK) using the capped composite files flagged by geostatistical domain, with inverse distance to the power of one (ID1) estimates also carried out as checks on the OK interpolated grades. Additionally, “capped” and “uncapped” interpolation runs were undertaken for all variables using both the OK and ID1 interpolation methodologies to assess the overall impact of the grade capping strategy.

All domain boundaries are hard boundaries for grade estimation purposes, as determined from analysis of contact plots, hence no soft or semi-soft boundaries are used. To fully populate the block model with grade values to assist with subsequent geometallurgy modelling, un-estimated blocks were assigned a default grade equal to the median grade of the first three interpolation passes for each variable within its respective geostatistical domain. Model cells populated with default grade values have been flagged as such, to allow their differentiation from the interpolated grade values during model validation and reporting.

Block Model Validation

After grade interpolation, the block values were visually validated by comparing block model grades with the input capped composites in plan and section view in both “unfolded” and “real” space in Datamine Studio software. Block grades were found to reasonably reflect the drillhole data, with a degree of smoothing evident in the block model which is expected given the influence of change in support and interpolation methodology.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [448 x 436] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12. East-west sections along 76080N, South Block, showing model cells and composite grades in real space coordinates (section thickness is 40 m).

All statistical and geostatistical review was undertaken in Datamine Studio software. Initially, the various geostatistical domains were validated for absent grades. No absent data was present. The models were also checked for negative grades, which may be present due to negative kriging weights. No negative grades were present. Volume comparisons between the “unfolded space” model and “real space model” were undertaken to ensure retention of model volume during the “refolding” process. Model volume was found to be equivalent between the two models.

For a global grade bias review, the mean global block model grades were compared to mean global grades of the input composite grades. The majority of variables within the primary economic zone of interest, the Limonite regolith domain, validate within 10% of the target mean grade as defined by the weighted composite grades. The exception is the cobalt estimate from within cobalt low-grade domain in the Central Block, and the scandium estimates from the North and Central blocks. The variances in these domains are

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

not considered as being material to the quality of the overall model, given the small magnitude grade values involved and the poorly sampled nature of these variables in Limonite regolith domain.

For spatial geostatistical review, trend plots were created for easting, northing and elevation slices through the geostatistical domains. Block mean grades typically compare well with the target distributions of the input composite grades, with a degree of smoothing evident in the block model which is expected in block estimation due to the influence of change in support and interpolation methodology.

==> picture [428 x 456] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [428 x 225] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 13. Trend plots for nickel, North Block, limonite high-grade geostatistical domain.

7. Resource Classification

The Mineral Resource has been classified following due consideration of all criteria contained in Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3 of JORC 2012 Table 1 (Appendix A). The Mineral Resource has been classified as either Indicated or Inferred based on data quality, sample spacing, mineralisation continuity, confidence in the geological interpretations, quality of the grade estimations and metallurgical processing knowledge. Given the overall limited density data, and the variable availability of assay information for variables critical for metallurgical recovery and processing modelling, ERM agrees with the outcome of the Cube (2016) audit and considers the delineation of Measured Mineral Resources as being unsupported at this time. All resources not classified as Indicated or Inferred have been considered as Unclassified.

All material interpolated in the Tertiary ESTDOM1 search pass (third interpolation pass for nickel) has been classified as Inferred on the following basis:

The search size for this interpolation pass approximates the maximum variogram ranges modelled for the primary variable of economic interest (nickel), and therefore represents the maximum distance that grade continuity can be demonstrated to.
The drill spacing represented by the material defined in this search pass approximates an average maximum spacing of 200–250 m, which is considered by the Competent Person as being sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological continuity for the deposit style.

All material interpolated in the Primary and Secondary ESTDOM 1 search passes (first and second interpolation passes for nickel) has been classified as Indicated on the following basis:

Estimation quality metrics, such as SOR and KE, decrease rapidly in zones approaching the Tertiary ESTDOM1 search pass.
The drill spacing represented by the material in this search pass approximates an average maximum spacing of 70 m, which is considered by the Competent Person as being sufficient to allow estimation of the deposit physical characteristics with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Factors in sufficient detail to support preliminary mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Material considered Unclassified encapsulates those parts of the resource that did not meet the criteria for Indicated or Inferred; they are located on the margins or in areas containing limited or no data that required large search distances to fill blocks.

==> picture [454 x 259] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 14. Oblique section looking northeast, North Block, SOR estimation quality metric.

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 257] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 15. Oblique section looking northeast, North Block, resource classification.

==> picture [454 x 253] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 16. Oblique section looking northeast, Central Block, SOR estimation quality metric.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 258] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 17. Oblique section looking northeast, Central Block, resource classification.

==> picture [454 x 275] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 18. Oblique section looking northeast, South Block, SOR estimation quality metric.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 279] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 19. Oblique section looking northeast, South Block, resource classification.

8. Mining and Metallurgical Methods

Clause 20 of the JORC Code (2012) requires that all reports of Mineral Resources must have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE), regardless of the classification of the Mineral Resource.

The Competent Person believes there are RPEEE of the Mineral Resources, based on the following:

The deposit is located in a favourable mining jurisdiction, with no known impediments to land access and tenure status. Resources within the Heritage Exclusion areas are excluded from public Mineral Resource statements, until such time as the situation changes.
The volume, orientation and grade of the Mineral Resource are amenable to mining extraction via traditional open pit mining methodologies.
Preliminary metallurgical and engineering studies have been completed. The results received to date show that Wingellina ore has characteristics ideally suited for High Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL) processing.
Current geometallurgical recoveries based on available metallurgical testwork, and nominal metal concentrate offtake payment terms were used in a Whittle pit optimisation to generate a resource pit shell.
Comprehensive environmental and social impact studies have also been completed.
A Mining Agreement between the Company and the Ngaanyatjarra Lands Council is in place.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 2 - JORC CODE (2012), TABLE 1

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques, drilling techniques, and drill sample recovery	Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as downhole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether	Diamond drilling A small portion of the data used in resource calculations at the Wingellina project has been gathered from diamond core. This core is geologically logged prior to sampling. Data from diamond holes was used in geological interpretation and density determination but not in grade estimation. Reverse circulation (RC) drilling RC drilling has been utilised extensively at Wingellina. From 2001 to 2008, drill cuttings were extracted from the RC return via cyclone. The underflow from each interval was transferred via bucket to a four-tiered riffle splitter, delivering approximately 3 kg of the recovered material into calico bags for analysis. The residual material was retained on the ground near each hole. Composite samples were obtained from the residue material for initial analysis, with the split samples remaining with the individual residual piles until required for re-split analysis or eventual disposal. A similar process was followed in subsequent drilling, the main difference being the use of a Cyclone cone splitter for drill rig sampling in the 2017, 2019 and 2022 programs. RC drilling produced samples that were collected at 2 m intervals using a cone splitter to produce an approximate 3 kg sample, which is considered representative of the full drill metre. This is considered to be an industry

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary standard. Sampling was guided by qualified field personnel. Historical – A variety of drilling methods were employed by INCO, including churn drilling (102 holes), DDH (19 holes), rotary air blast (RAB) drilling (2,643 holes), vacuum (77 holes) Becker drilling (102 holes). Sample recoveries from RC drilling carried out after 2001 were very good except where the drillhole encountered strong water flow from the hole. No defined relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fine or coarse material been noted. Sample recovery from early drilling by INCO is not known. All geology input is logged and validated by the relevant area geologists, incorporated into this is assessment of sample recovery. No defined relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fine or coarse material been noted. Geological logging of the drill chips and diamond core were recorded for all holes, including lithology, mineralogy, texture, weathering, oxidation, colour and other features of the samples. Drill chips were not logged to any geotechnical standard. Logging of RC drill chips is considered to be semiquantitative given the nature of rock chip fragments and the inability to obtain detailed geological information. The drillholes were logged in full to the end of the hole.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.). Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	standard. Sampling was guided by qualified field personnel. Historical – A variety of drilling methods were employed by INCO, including churn drilling (102 holes), DDH (19 holes), rotary air blast (RAB) drilling (2,643 holes), vacuum (77 holes) Becker drilling (102 holes). Sample recoveries from RC drilling carried out after 2001 were very good except where the drillhole encountered strong water flow from the hole. No defined relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fine or coarse material been noted. Sample recovery from early drilling by INCO is not known. All geology input is logged and validated by the relevant area geologists, incorporated into this is assessment of sample recovery. No defined relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fine or coarse material been noted.
Logging	Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography. The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	Geological logging of the drill chips and diamond core were recorded for all holes, including lithology, mineralogy, texture, weathering, oxidation, colour and other features of the samples. Drill chips were not logged to any geotechnical standard. Logging of RC drill chips is considered to be semiquantitative given the nature of rock chip fragments and the inability to obtain detailed geological information. The drillholes were logged in full to the end of the hole.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary A sample of each 5 ft of drilling from INCO drilling were quartered and forwarded for assay, either to AMDEL in Adelaide, or to INCO’s in-house laboratory at Blackstone. Samples of RC drilling taken prior to 2006 were composited on 3 m or 4 m basis, and the composite assayed. A 1 m riffle-split sample was also taken for each metre drilled and was submitted for analysis if the composite assayed >0.4% Ni. Subsampling for the 2006–2016 RC drilling was riffle split each 2 m sample drilled. Subsampling for 2017–2022 RC drilling involved all 2 m splits from the drillholes being passed through a cone splitter to produce a 7.5% representative sample for assaying. Chips/core chips undergo total preparation. Quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) is currently ensured during the subsampling stages process via the use of the systems of an independent NATA/ISO accredited laboratory contractor. A portion of the historical informing data has been processed by in-house laboratories. The sample size is considered appropriate for the grain size of the material being sampled. The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check sampling if required. For RC chips regular field duplicates are collected and analysed for significant variance to primary results.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Subsampling techniques and sample preparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry. For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. Quality control procedures adopted for all subsampling stages to maximise representativity of samples. Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in-situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	A sample of each 5 ft of drilling from INCO drilling were quartered and forwarded for assay, either to AMDEL in Adelaide, or to INCO’s in-house laboratory at Blackstone. Samples of RC drilling taken prior to 2006 were composited on 3 m or 4 m basis, and the composite assayed. A 1 m riffle-split sample was also taken for each metre drilled and was submitted for analysis if the composite assayed >0.4% Ni. Subsampling for the 2006–2016 RC drilling was riffle split each 2 m sample drilled. Subsampling for 2017–2022 RC drilling involved all 2 m splits from the drillholes being passed through a cone splitter to produce a 7.5% representative sample for assaying. Chips/core chips undergo total preparation. Quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) is currently ensured during the subsampling stages process via the use of the systems of an independent NATA/ISO accredited laboratory contractor. A portion of the historical informing data has been processed by in-house laboratories. The sample size is considered appropriate for the grain size of the material being sampled. The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check sampling if required. For RC chips regular field duplicates are collected and analysed for significant variance to primary results.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary Samples of INCO’s drilling were dried and assayed by AAS either at AMDEL in Adelaide, or at INCO’s in-house laboratory at Blackstone. The digest method was not specified. Samples were assayed for nickel, cobalt and iron. Analytical quality control was maintained by the by the insertion of standard samples and re-analysis of duplicates at separate laboratories at a frequency of two check analyses for every 20 samples. Composite samples of RC drilling completed in 2001 were submitted to AMDEL, dried and pulverised, and assayed for Ni, Co, Ag, As, Bi, Cu, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Pb, S, Sb, Ti, V, Zr, Ca and Al by HF-multi-acid digest/inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). The 1 m riffle-splits for any composite sample assaying >0.4% Ni were retrieved, and re-assayed using the same method. Composite samples from 2002–2004 were assayed for Al, Ca, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, Ti by borate fusion ICP-OES, and for Ag, As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S, Sb, V, Zr by HF-multi- acid digest/ICP-OES. During 2005, 2 m composite riffle-split (or spear-sampled for wet samples) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each 2 m composite sample was dried and pulverised to a nominal 90% passing 75 µm and analysed for: As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S and Zn by ICP-OES. Samples returning >0.4% Ni were re-assayed for Ni, Co, Al2O3, CaO, K2O, Fe2O3, MgO, MnO, Na2O, SiO2, V2O5, TiO2, Cr, SO3, Cu, Zn by fused disc x-ray fluorescence (XRF). 2005–2016 two-metre composite riffle- split (or spear-sampled) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	Samples of INCO’s drilling were dried and assayed by AAS either at AMDEL in Adelaide, or at INCO’s in-house laboratory at Blackstone. The digest method was not specified. Samples were assayed for nickel, cobalt and iron. Analytical quality control was maintained by the by the insertion of standard samples and re-analysis of duplicates at separate laboratories at a frequency of two check analyses for every 20 samples. Composite samples of RC drilling completed in 2001 were submitted to AMDEL, dried and pulverised, and assayed for Ni, Co, Ag, As, Bi, Cu, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Pb, S, Sb, Ti, V, Zr, Ca and Al by HF-multi-acid digest/inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). The 1 m riffle-splits for any composite sample assaying >0.4% Ni were retrieved, and re-assayed using the same method. Composite samples from 2002–2004 were assayed for Al, Ca, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, Ti by borate fusion ICP-OES, and for Ag, As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S, Sb, V, Zr by HF-multi- acid digest/ICP-OES. During 2005, 2 m composite riffle-split (or spear-sampled for wet samples) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each 2 m composite sample was dried and pulverised to a nominal 90% passing 75 µm and analysed for: As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S and Zn by ICP-OES. Samples returning >0.4% Ni were re-assayed for Ni, Co, Al2O3, CaO, K2O, Fe2O3, MgO, MnO, Na2O, SiO2, V2O5, TiO2, Cr, SO3, Cu, Zn by fused disc x-ray fluorescence (XRF). 2005–2016 two-metre composite riffle- split (or spear-sampled) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

			Commentary sample was pulverised to nominal 90% passing 75 µm for analysis for assay for Ni, Co, Al2O3, SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, MnO, CaO, K2O, MgO, SO3, Na2O, V2O5, Cr, Cu and Zn by fused disc XRF. Duplicate samples were taken by spearing the sample pile on the ground approximately every 20 samples, and an in-house standard was inserted into the sample run every alternate 20 samples. 2017 and 2019 RC drilling and sampling was completed as per 2005–2016 but with the use of a cone splitter instead of a riffle splitter. 2022 RC drilling produced samples that were collected at 2 m intervals using a cone splitter to produce an approximate 3 kg sample, which is considered representative of the full drill metre. This is considered to be an industry standard. Sampling was guided by qualified field personnel. All samples were sent to Intertek Laboratories (Perth or Kalgoorlie). Samples were analysed for a standard 18 element XRF nickel laterite suite (FB1/XRF – Al2O3, CaO, Co, Cr2O3, Cu, Fe2O3, K2O, LOI, MgO, MnO, Na2O, Ni, P2O5, SO3, Sc, SiO2, TiO2, Zn) on all of the samples and an Aqua Regia digestion/ICP MS (AR25/MS) multielement suite on approximately half of the samples (Au, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Hf, Hg, In, K, La, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Pd, Pt, Rb, Re, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn, Zr). Sample weights ranged from 1 kg to 3 kg. Samples were dried, crushed and pulverised to -75 µm. Analysis was undertaken using both XRF and Aqua Regia digestion/inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Both are considered accepted industry
	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
			sample was pulverised to nominal 90% passing 75 µm for analysis for assay for Ni, Co, Al2O3, SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, MnO, CaO, K2O, MgO, SO3, Na2O, V2O5, Cr, Cu and Zn by fused disc XRF. Duplicate samples were taken by spearing the sample pile on the ground approximately every 20 samples, and an in-house standard was inserted into the sample run every alternate 20 samples. 2017 and 2019 RC drilling and sampling was completed as per 2005–2016 but with the use of a cone splitter instead of a riffle splitter. 2022 RC drilling produced samples that were collected at 2 m intervals using a cone splitter to produce an approximate 3 kg sample, which is considered representative of the full drill metre. This is considered to be an industry standard. Sampling was guided by qualified field personnel. All samples were sent to Intertek Laboratories (Perth or Kalgoorlie). Samples were analysed for a standard 18 element XRF nickel laterite suite (FB1/XRF – Al2O3, CaO, Co, Cr2O3, Cu, Fe2O3, K2O, LOI, MgO, MnO, Na2O, Ni, P2O5, SO3, Sc, SiO2, TiO2, Zn) on all of the samples and an Aqua Regia digestion/ICP MS (AR25/MS) multielement suite on approximately half of the samples (Au, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Hf, Hg, In, K, La, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Pd, Pt, Rb, Re, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn, Zr). Sample weights ranged from 1 kg to 3 kg. Samples were dried, crushed and pulverised to -75 µm. Analysis was undertaken using both XRF and Aqua Regia digestion/inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Both are considered accepted industry

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary analytical process appropriate for the nature and style of mineralisation under investigation. Blanks and standards were incorporated into the sampling procedure. Intertek undertook their own internal checks and blanks. No significant QAQC issues have arisen in recent drilling results. These assay methodologies are appropriate for the resource in question. Anomalous intervals as well as random intervals are routinely checked assayed as part of the internal QAQC process. Virtual twinned holes have been drilled in several instances across all sites with no significant issues highlighted. Primary data is loaded into the drillhole database system and then archived for reference. All data used in the calculation of resources and reserves are compiled in databases which are overseen and validated by senior geologists. No primary assay data is modified in any way. All hole collar locations for RC holes drilled after 2000 were surveyed using a Real Time Kinematic global positioning system (GPS). This measured collar X, Y and Z coordinates to sub-centimetre accuracy in terms of the MGA 94, Zone 52 metric grid. Hole collars for almost all INCO drillholes were relocated and surveyed using the TREK GPS. Several INCO collars could not be located, and their MGA positions are estimated from their drilled location on the original INCO Imperial local grid.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		analytical process appropriate for the nature and style of mineralisation under investigation. Blanks and standards were incorporated into the sampling procedure. Intertek undertook their own internal checks and blanks. No significant QAQC issues have arisen in recent drilling results. These assay methodologies are appropriate for the resource in question.
Verification of sampling and assaying	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. The use of twinned holes. Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	Anomalous intervals as well as random intervals are routinely checked assayed as part of the internal QAQC process. Virtual twinned holes have been drilled in several instances across all sites with no significant issues highlighted. Primary data is loaded into the drillhole database system and then archived for reference. All data used in the calculation of resources and reserves are compiled in databases which are overseen and validated by senior geologists. No primary assay data is modified in any way.
Location of data points	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drillholes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. Specification of the grid system used. Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	All hole collar locations for RC holes drilled after 2000 were surveyed using a Real Time Kinematic global positioning system (GPS). This measured collar X, Y and Z coordinates to sub-centimetre accuracy in terms of the MGA 94, Zone 52 metric grid. Hole collars for almost all INCO drillholes were relocated and surveyed using the TREK GPS. Several INCO collars could not be located, and their MGA positions are estimated from their drilled location on the original INCO Imperial local grid.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary Topographic control is generated from a combination of remote sensing methods and ground-based surveys. This methodology is adequate for the resource in question. Drillhole spacing at Wingellina is generally on a 120 m x 50 m spacing. This has been filled-in to 60 m x 50 m and 30 m x 25 m spacing in some areas. The data spacing is sufficient for both the estimation procedure and resource classification applied. Compositing of drill assay data to 2 m was used in the estimate. Drilling intersections are nominally designed to be sub-normal to the deposit. It is not considered that drilling orientation has introduced an appreciable sampling bias. Samples are delivered to a third-party transport service, who in turn relay them to the independent laboratory contractor. Samples are stored securely until they leave site. The parent geological data is routinely reviewed by the NC1 Corporate technical team.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Topographic control is generated from a combination of remote sensing methods and ground-based surveys. This methodology is adequate for the resource in question.
Data spacing and distribution	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. Whether sample compositing has been applied.	Drillhole spacing at Wingellina is generally on a 120 m x 50 m spacing. This has been filled-in to 60 m x 50 m and 30 m x 25 m spacing in some areas. The data spacing is sufficient for both the estimation procedure and resource classification applied. Compositing of drill assay data to 2 m was used in the estimate.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	Drilling intersections are nominally designed to be sub-normal to the deposit. It is not considered that drilling orientation has introduced an appreciable sampling bias.
Sample security	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Samples are delivered to a third-party transport service, who in turn relay them to the independent laboratory contractor. Samples are stored securely until they leave site.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	The parent geological data is routinely reviewed by the NC1 Corporate technical team.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	The Wingellina project comprises four granted exploration leases and three granted miscellaneous leases. Native title interests are recorded against the WINGELLINA tenements. The Wingellina tenements are held by Austral Nickel Pty Ltd (South Australia) and Hinckley Range Pty Ltd (Western Australia). Nico Resources Ltd (NC1) has 100% ownership of both companies. One third party royalty agreement applies to the tenements at WINGELLINA, over and above the state government royalty. Hinckley Range and Austral Nickel operate in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the leases. There are no known issues regarding security of tenure. There are no known impediments to continued operation.
Exploration done by other parties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	The Wingellina area has an exploration history which extends to the 1960s, with significant contributors being INCO, Acclaim and Metex Nickel (Metals X). On balance, NC1 work has generally confirmed the veracity of historical exploration data.
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	The Musgrave Block is an east-west trending, structurally bounded mid- Proterozoic terrane some 130,000 km2in area, straddling the common borders of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary Deep weathering of olivine-rich ultramafic units has resulted in the concentration of nickel mineralisation. The olivines in the ultramafic units have background values of about 0.15% Ni to 0.3% Ni. The almost complete removal of MgO and SiO2to groundwaters during the weathering of olivines in the ultramafic units resulted in extreme volume reductions and consequent significant upgrading of other rock forming oxides (Fe2O3, Al2O3) and metal element concentrations in the weathered profile. No drillhole information is being presented. No drillhole information is being presented.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Deep weathering of olivine-rich ultramafic units has resulted in the concentration of nickel mineralisation. The olivines in the ultramafic units have background values of about 0.15% Ni to 0.3% Ni. The almost complete removal of MgO and SiO2to groundwaters during the weathering of olivines in the ultramafic units resulted in extreme volume reductions and consequent significant upgrading of other rock forming oxides (Fe2O3, Al2O3) and metal element concentrations in the weathered profile.
Drillhole information	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drillholes: easting and northing of the drillhole collar elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drillhole collar dip and azimuth of the hole down hole length and interception depth hole length. If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.	No drillhole information is being presented.
Data aggregation methods	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations(e.g. cutting of high grades)	No drillhole information is being presented.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary No drillhole information is being presented. No drillhole information is being presented. No drillhole information is being presented.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high-grade results and longer lengths of low-grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drillhole angle is known, its nature should be reported. If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘downhole length, true width not known’).	No drillhole information is being presented.
Diagrams	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drillhole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	No drillhole information is being presented.
Balanced reporting	Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	No drillhole information is being presented.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary No drillhole information is being presented. No drillhole information is being presented.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Other substantive exploration data	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	No drillhole information is being presented.
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step- out drilling). Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	No drillhole information is being presented.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. Data validation procedures used.	Drillhole data is stored in a Micromine Geobank system based on the Sequel Server platform which is currently considered “industry standard”. As new data is acquired it passes through a validation approval system designed to pick up any significant errors before the information is loaded into the master database. The information is uploaded by a series of Sequel routines and is performed as required. The database contains diamond drilling (including geotechnical and specific gravity data), and some associated metadata. By its nature this database is large in size, and therefore exports from the main database are undertaken (with or without the application of spatial and various other filters) to create a database of workable size, preserve a snapshot of the database at the time of orebody modelling and interpretation and preserve the integrity of the master database.
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	The site is manned continually by Senior Geological personnel. The Competent Person has not yet undertaken any site visits. This is due to the recent lack of activity on site and the remote nature of the deposit.
Geological interpretation	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.	Confidence in the geological model used to constrain the Wingellina estimate is high, with the genetic model for lateritic nickel development well understood. Downhole geochemistry supplemented with geology has been used to drive the mineralisation interpretation. The well- defined Fe/Mgratio is consistent across

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. global nickel laterites and was successfully used to define the regolith boundaries between Limonite, Transitional, Saprolite and Saprock zones. Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource figure was both sufficiently constrained, and representative of the expected subsurface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. The protolithology is the dominant control on grade continuity at the Wingellina. Structural controls which influence depth of weathering are secondary controls on grade distribution. Dimensions The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. Individual deposit scales vary across the WINGELLINA. The Wingellina deposits have a strike length of >11 km, a lateral extent of up to 2.5 km and a depth of up to 200 m. Estimation and modelling techniques The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. All modelling and estimation work undertaken was carried out in three dimensions via GEMS or Datamine. After validating the drillhole data to be used in the estimation, interpretation of the orebody is undertaken in sectional and/or plan view to create the outline strings which form the basis of the 3D orebody wireframe. Wireframing is then carried out using a combination of automated stitching algorithms and manual triangulation to create an accurate 3D representation of the subsurface mineralised body.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. global nickel laterites and was successfully used to define the regolith boundaries between Limonite, Transitional, Saprolite and Saprock zones. Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource figure was both sufficiently constrained, and representative of the expected subsurface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. The protolithology is the dominant control on grade continuity at the Wingellina. Structural controls which influence depth of weathering are secondary controls on grade distribution. Dimensions The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. Individual deposit scales vary across the WINGELLINA. The Wingellina deposits have a strike length of >11 km, a lateral extent of up to 2.5 km and a depth of up to 200 m. Estimation and modelling techniques The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. All modelling and estimation work undertaken was carried out in three dimensions via GEMS or Datamine. After validating the drillhole data to be used in the estimation, interpretation of the orebody is undertaken in sectional and/or plan view to create the outline strings which form the basis of the 3D orebody wireframe. Wireframing is then carried out using a combination of automated stitching algorithms and manual triangulation to create an accurate 3D representation of the subsurface mineralised body.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. global nickel laterites and was successfully used to define the regolith boundaries between Limonite, Transitional, Saprolite and Saprock zones. Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource figure was both sufficiently constrained, and representative of the expected subsurface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. The protolithology is the dominant control on grade continuity at the Wingellina. Structural controls which influence depth of weathering are secondary controls on grade distribution. Dimensions The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. Individual deposit scales vary across the WINGELLINA. The Wingellina deposits have a strike length of >11 km, a lateral extent of up to 2.5 km and a depth of up to 200 m. Estimation and modelling techniques The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. All modelling and estimation work undertaken was carried out in three dimensions via GEMS or Datamine. After validating the drillhole data to be used in the estimation, interpretation of the orebody is undertaken in sectional and/or plan view to create the outline strings which form the basis of the 3D orebody wireframe. Wireframing is then carried out using a combination of automated stitching algorithms and manual triangulation to create an accurate 3D representation of the subsurface mineralised body.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	global nickel laterites and was successfully used to define the regolith boundaries between Limonite, Transitional, Saprolite and Saprock zones. Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource figure was both sufficiently constrained, and representative of the expected subsurface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. The protolithology is the dominant control on grade continuity at the Wingellina. Structural controls which influence depth of weathering are secondary controls on grade distribution.
Dimensions	The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	Individual deposit scales vary across the WINGELLINA. The Wingellina deposits have a strike length of >11 km, a lateral extent of up to 2.5 km and a depth of up to 200 m.
Estimation and modelling techniques	The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	All modelling and estimation work undertaken was carried out in three dimensions via GEMS or Datamine. After validating the drillhole data to be used in the estimation, interpretation of the orebody is undertaken in sectional and/or plan view to create the outline strings which form the basis of the 3D orebody wireframe. Wireframing is then carried out using a combination of automated stitching algorithms and manual triangulation to create an accurate 3D representation of the subsurface mineralised body.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. Any assumptions about correlation between variables. Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. Drillhole intersections within the mineralised body are defined, these intersections are then used to flag the appropriate sections of the drillhole database tables for compositing purposes. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis (using Snowden Supervisor v8.5) is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top cuts, etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. Grade estimation is then undertaken, with the ordinary kriging estimation method considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defined, inverse distance weightingestimation	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. Any assumptions about correlation between variables. Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. Drillhole intersections within the mineralised body are defined, these intersections are then used to flag the appropriate sections of the drillhole database tables for compositing purposes. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis (using Snowden Supervisor v8.5) is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top cuts, etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. Grade estimation is then undertaken, with the ordinary kriging estimation method considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defined, inverse distance weightingestimation	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. Any assumptions about correlation between variables. Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. Drillhole intersections within the mineralised body are defined, these intersections are then used to flag the appropriate sections of the drillhole database tables for compositing purposes. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis (using Snowden Supervisor v8.5) is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top cuts, etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. Grade estimation is then undertaken, with the ordinary kriging estimation method considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defined, inverse distance weightingestimation
	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. Any assumptions about correlation between variables. Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	Drillhole intersections within the mineralised body are defined, these intersections are then used to flag the appropriate sections of the drillhole database tables for compositing purposes. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation, the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis (using Snowden Supervisor v8.5) is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top cuts, etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. Grade estimation is then undertaken, with the ordinary kriging estimation method considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defined, inverse distance weightingestimation

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary techniques may be used. Both by- product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation if required. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with nickel. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological/mining knowledge. This approach has proven to be applicable to NC1’s nickel assets. Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output. Moisture Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes. Cut-off parameters The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. The resource reporting cut-off grade is 0.4% Ni. The reporting cut-off used was based on grade-tonnage curves which showed that there was very little difference in grade but an increase in tonnes from 0.5% Ni to 0.4% Ni. Mining factors or assumptions Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Not considered for Mineral Resource. Will be applied during the Reserve generation process.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary techniques may be used. Both by- product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation if required. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with nickel. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological/mining knowledge. This approach has proven to be applicable to NC1’s nickel assets. Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output. Moisture Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes. Cut-off parameters The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. The resource reporting cut-off grade is 0.4% Ni. The reporting cut-off used was based on grade-tonnage curves which showed that there was very little difference in grade but an increase in tonnes from 0.5% Ni to 0.4% Ni. Mining factors or assumptions Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Not considered for Mineral Resource. Will be applied during the Reserve generation process.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary techniques may be used. Both by- product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation if required. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with nickel. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological/mining knowledge. This approach has proven to be applicable to NC1’s nickel assets. Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output. Moisture Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes. Cut-off parameters The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. The resource reporting cut-off grade is 0.4% Ni. The reporting cut-off used was based on grade-tonnage curves which showed that there was very little difference in grade but an increase in tonnes from 0.5% Ni to 0.4% Ni. Mining factors or assumptions Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Not considered for Mineral Resource. Will be applied during the Reserve generation process.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		techniques may be used. Both by- product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation if required. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with nickel. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological/mining knowledge. This approach has proven to be applicable to NC1’s nickel assets. Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output.
Moisture	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes.
Cut-off parameters	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	The resource reporting cut-off grade is 0.4% Ni. The reporting cut-off used was based on grade-tonnage curves which showed that there was very little difference in grade but an increase in tonnes from 0.5% Ni to 0.4% Ni.
Mining factors or assumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral	Not considered for Mineral Resource. Will be applied during the Reserve generation process.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Resources may not always be rigorous.
Where this is the case, this should be
reported with an explanation of the
basis of the mining assumptions made.
Metallurgical
factors
or
assumptions
The
basis
for
assumptions
or
predictions
regarding
metallurgical
amenability. It is always necessary as
part of the process of determining
reasonable prospects for eventual
economic
extraction
to
consider
potential metallurgical methods, but
the
assumptions
regarding
metallurgical treatment processes and
parameters made when reporting
Mineral Resources may not always be
rigorous. Where this is the case, this
should be reported with an explanation
of the basis of the metallurgical
assumptions made.
Not considered for Mineral Resource.
Will be applied during the Reserve
generation process.
Environmental
factors
or
assumptions
Assumptions made regarding possible
waste and process residue disposal
options. It is always necessary as part of
the process of determining reasonable
prospects
for
eventual
economic
extraction to consider the potential
environmental impacts of the mining
and processing operation. While at this
stage the determination of potential
environmental impacts, particularly for
a greenfields project, may not always
be well advanced, the status of early
consideration
of
these
potential
environmental
impacts
should
be
reported. Where these aspects have not
been considered this should be reported
with
an
explanation
of
the
environmental assumptions made.
NC1 operates in accordance with all
environmental conditions set down as
conditions for grant of the respective
leases.
Bulk density
Whether assumed or determined. If
assumed, the basis for the assumptions.
If determined, the method used,
whether wet or dry, thefrequency of the
Sampling of HQ diamond drill core was
used to determine the dry density of
limonite ore. Average measured dry
densityis 1.26 t/m3for limonite,1.37 t/m3

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials. for transitional, 1.55 t/m3for saprolite and 2.05 t/m3saprock. A total of 281 triple-tube HQ core samples were collected immediately from the core barrel and measured for bulk density on site. The core length was measured for diameter and length (square-cut ends), dried for 24 hours in a gas oven at 120°C, and weighed. Density was calculated by dividing the weight (kg) of dry sample by the volume of the core piece. Classification The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. Resources are classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, the input data and geological/mining knowledge. This approach considers all relevant factors and reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. Audits or reviews The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. Resource estimates have been peer reviewed by ERM’s technical team as well as NC1’s Corporate technical team. Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors that could All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both a global and local scale.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials. for transitional, 1.55 t/m3for saprolite and 2.05 t/m3saprock. A total of 281 triple-tube HQ core samples were collected immediately from the core barrel and measured for bulk density on site. The core length was measured for diameter and length (square-cut ends), dried for 24 hours in a gas oven at 120°C, and weighed. Density was calculated by dividing the weight (kg) of dry sample by the volume of the core piece. Classification The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. Resources are classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, the input data and geological/mining knowledge. This approach considers all relevant factors and reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. Audits or reviews The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. Resource estimates have been peer reviewed by ERM’s technical team as well as NC1’s Corporate technical team. Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors that could All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both a global and local scale.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials. for transitional, 1.55 t/m3for saprolite and 2.05 t/m3saprock. A total of 281 triple-tube HQ core samples were collected immediately from the core barrel and measured for bulk density on site. The core length was measured for diameter and length (square-cut ends), dried for 24 hours in a gas oven at 120°C, and weighed. Density was calculated by dividing the weight (kg) of dry sample by the volume of the core piece. Classification The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. Resources are classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, the input data and geological/mining knowledge. This approach considers all relevant factors and reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. Audits or reviews The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. Resource estimates have been peer reviewed by ERM’s technical team as well as NC1’s Corporate technical team. Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors that could All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both a global and local scale.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	for transitional, 1.55 t/m3for saprolite and 2.05 t/m3saprock. A total of 281 triple-tube HQ core samples were collected immediately from the core barrel and measured for bulk density on site. The core length was measured for diameter and length (square-cut ends), dried for 24 hours in a gas oven at 120°C, and weighed. Density was calculated by dividing the weight (kg) of dry sample by the volume of the core piece.
Classification	The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	Resources are classified in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, the input data and geological/mining knowledge. This approach considers all relevant factors and reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	Resource estimates have been peer reviewed by ERM’s technical team as well as NC1’s Corporate technical team.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors that could	All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both a global and local scale.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary
affect
the
relative
accuracy
and
confidence of the estimate.
The statement should specify whether it
relates to global or local estimates, and,
if local, state the relevant tonnages,
which should be relevant to technical
and
economic
evaluation.
Documentation
should
include
assumptions made and the procedures
used.
These statements of relative accuracy
and confidence of the estimate should
be compared with production data,
where available.

Section 4: Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2 and 3, also apply to this section)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for conversion to Ore Reserves	Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore Reserve. Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.	At all projects, all resources that have been converted to reserve are classified as either an Indicated or Measured Resource. Indicated Resources are only upgraded to Probable Reserves after adding appropriate modifying factors. Some Measured Resource may be classified as Proven Reserves and some is classified as Probable Reserve based on whether it is capitally or fully developed.
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	Irregular site visits have been undertaken. The reserve has remained broadly consistent since the 2008 Feasibility Study was completed, with only one minor update based on the 2016 updated resource undertaken.
Study status	The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be converted to Ore Reserves.	An updated Feasibility Study utilising a combination of internal and external expertise has been undertaken to allow

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary the conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. The cut-off grade used for inclusion in the Wingellina reserve was determined through the Feasibility Study process. Cobalt co-product revenue is considered by the Feasibility Study. Whittle 4D was used to formulate optimal pit shell, with subsequent designs being undertaken in Surpac. Mining studies indicate most material will be free digging, but an allowance has been made to blast some material. The material outcrops on surface and has an overall strip ratio of 1.1:1. Due to the shallow nature and expected ground conditions, slope angles are low. Geotechnical data has been obtained through logging. The Mineral Resource was used to formulate the Ore Reserves. Due to the bulk nature of the deposit, limited dilution factors have been used, combined with high recovery factors.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The Code requires that a study to at least Pre-Feasibility Study level has been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. Such studies will have been carried out and will have determined a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and that material Modifying Factors have been considered.	the conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves.
Cut-off parameters	The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	The cut-off grade used for inclusion in the Wingellina reserve was determined through the Feasibility Study process. Cobalt co-product revenue is considered by the Feasibility Study.
Mining factors or assumptions	The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve (i.e. either by application of appropriate factors by optimisation or by preliminary or detailed design). The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining method(s) and other mining parameters including associated design issues such as pre- strip, access, etc. The assumptions made regarding geotechnical parameters (e.g. pit slopes, stope sizes, etc.), grade control and pre-production drilling. The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). The mining dilution factors used. The mining recovery factors used. Any minimum mining widths used.	Whittle 4D was used to formulate optimal pit shell, with subsequent designs being undertaken in Surpac. Mining studies indicate most material will be free digging, but an allowance has been made to blast some material. The material outcrops on surface and has an overall strip ratio of 1.1:1. Due to the shallow nature and expected ground conditions, slope angles are low. Geotechnical data has been obtained through logging. The Mineral Resource was used to formulate the Ore Reserves. Due to the bulk nature of the deposit, limited dilution factors have been used, combined with high recovery factors.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary Based on this preliminary assessment, the Wingellina deposit may be processed by a pressure acid leach flowsheet. Pressure acid leach is a proven nickel extraction method both in Australia and globally. Extensive testwork including at pilot plant scale has been conducted on Wingellina material over the period 1965 to 2016. Alternate processing options are actively being tested. Waste dumps were considered during the Feasibility Study. A draft Public Environmental Notice has been completed and will be published.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that process to the style of mineralisation. Whether the metallurgical process is well-tested technology or novel in nature. The nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical testwork undertaken, the nature of the metallurgical domaining applied and the corresponding metallurgical recovery factors applied. Any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements. The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale testwork and the degree to which such samples are considered representative of the orebody as a whole. For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifications?	Based on this preliminary assessment, the Wingellina deposit may be processed by a pressure acid leach flowsheet. Pressure acid leach is a proven nickel extraction method both in Australia and globally. Extensive testwork including at pilot plant scale has been conducted on Wingellina material over the period 1965 to 2016. Alternate processing options are actively being tested.
Environmental	The status of studies of potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. Details of waste rock characterisation and the consideration of potential sites, status of design options considered and, where applicable, the status of	Waste dumps were considered during the Feasibility Study. A draft Public Environmental Notice has been completed and will be published.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary Limited infrastructure is currently present. All required infrastructure was considered in the Feasibility Study. Infrastructure is considered standard for a remote site setup. The Feasibility Study was completed in 2008 using both independent and internal cost estimates. These costs were updated in 2012. Both government and private royalties are payable. All royalties were considered as part of the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study progressed utilising assumptions regarding foreign exchange rates and commodity prices presented below. These prices have been set by corporate management and are considered a realistic forecast of expected commodity prices and exchange rates over the initial period of projected operation at Wingellina. Ni = US $20,000/t Co = US $45,000/t
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	approvals for process residue storage and waste dumps should be reported.
Infrastructure	The existence of appropriate infrastructure: availability of land for plant development, power, water, transportation (particularly for bulk commodities), labour, accommodation; or the ease with which the infrastructure can be provided, or accessed.	Limited infrastructure is currently present. All required infrastructure was considered in the Feasibility Study. Infrastructure is considered standard for a remote site setup.
Costs	The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital costs in the study. The methodology used to estimate operating costs. Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements. The source of exchange rates used in the study. Derivation of transportation charges. The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges, penalties for failure to meet specification, etc. The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and private.	The Feasibility Study was completed in 2008 using both independent and internal cost estimates. These costs were updated in 2012. Both government and private royalties are payable. All royalties were considered as part of the Feasibility Study.
Revenue factors	The derivation of, or assumptions made regarding revenue factors including head grade, metal or commodity price(s) exchange rates, transportation and treatment charges, penalties, net smelter returns, etc. The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal metals, minerals and co- products.	The Feasibility Study progressed utilising assumptions regarding foreign exchange rates and commodity prices presented below. These prices have been set by corporate management and are considered a realistic forecast of expected commodity prices and exchange rates over the initial period of projected operation at Wingellina. Ni = US $20,000/t Co = US $45,000/t

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary Exchange rate (A$:US$) US$0.85. Head grades have been defined via Whittle optimisation and subsequent scheduling. Detailed economic studies of the nickel market and future price estimates are considered by NC1 and applied in the estimation of revenue, cut-off grade analysis and future mine planning decisions. There remains strong demand and no apparent risk to the long-term demand for the nickel generated from the project. For the WINGELLINA, which is yet to be funded, an 8% real discount rate is applied to NPV analysis. Sensitivity analysis of key financial and physical parameters is applied to future development project considerations and mine. The Wingellina mine is yet to start and will require environmental and other regulatory permitting. A Native Title agreement has been reached.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Exchange rate (A$:US$) US$0.85. Head grades have been defined via Whittle optimisation and subsequent scheduling.
Market assessment	The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends and factors likely to affect supply and demand into the future. A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of likely market windows for the product. Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts. For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and acceptance requirements prior to a supply contract.	Detailed economic studies of the nickel market and future price estimates are considered by NC1 and applied in the estimation of revenue, cut-off grade analysis and future mine planning decisions. There remains strong demand and no apparent risk to the long-term demand for the nickel generated from the project.
Economic	The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, the source and confidence of these economic inputs including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc. NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant assumptions and inputs.	For the WINGELLINA, which is yet to be funded, an 8% real discount rate is applied to NPV analysis. Sensitivity analysis of key financial and physical parameters is applied to future development project considerations and mine.
Social	The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	The Wingellina mine is yet to start and will require environmental and other regulatory permitting.
Other	To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation and classification of the Ore Reserves: Any identified material naturally occurring risks. The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements.	A Native Title agreement has been reached.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary The basis for classification of the resource into different categories is made on a subjective basis. Measured Resources have a high level of confidence and are generally defined in three dimensions. Indicated Resources have a slightly lower level of confidence but contain substantial drilling and are well defined from a mining perspective. Inferred Resources always contain significant geological evidence of existence and are drilled, but not to the same density. There is no classification of any resource that is not drilled or defined by substantial physical sampling works. The result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. Site generated reserves and the parent data and economic evaluation data is routinely reviewed by the NC1 Corporate technical team. Resources and Reserves have in the past been subjected to external expert reviews, which have ratified them with no issues. There is no regular external consultant review process in place.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the viability of the project, such as mineral tenement status, and government and statutory approvals. There must be reasonable grounds to expect that all necessary Government approvals will be received within the timeframes anticipated in the Pre- Feasibility or Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss the materiality of any unresolved matter that is dependent on a third party on which extraction of the reserve is contingent.
Classification	The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories. Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived from Measured Mineral Resources (if any).	The basis for classification of the resource into different categories is made on a subjective basis. Measured Resources have a high level of confidence and are generally defined in three dimensions. Indicated Resources have a slightly lower level of confidence but contain substantial drilling and are well defined from a mining perspective. Inferred Resources always contain significant geological evidence of existence and are drilled, but not to the same density. There is no classification of any resource that is not drilled or defined by substantial physical sampling works. The result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	Site generated reserves and the parent data and economic evaluation data is routinely reviewed by the NC1 Corporate technical team. Resources and Reserves have in the past been subjected to external expert reviews, which have ratified them with no issues. There is no regular external consultant review process in place.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

		Commentary All currently reported reserve calculations are considered representative on a global scale. Only material considered as part of the Feasibility Study has been included as part of the reserve statement. Limited modifying factors have been applied due to the massive nature of the deposit and the closeness to the surface.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Ore Reserve estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the reserve within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors which could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. Accuracy and confidence discussions should extend to specific discussions of any applied Modifying Factors that may have a material impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which there are remaining areas of uncertainty at the current study stage. It is recognised that this may not be possible or appropriate in all circumstances. These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	All currently reported reserve calculations are considered representative on a global scale. Only material considered as part of the Feasibility Study has been included as part of the reserve statement. Limited modifying factors have been applied due to the massive nature of the deposit and the closeness to the surface.

ASX Announcement Released 28 August 2024

AI assistant

NICO RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2024

65406_rns_2024-08-27_473468bb-fc70-4613-a43a-1098ebb698f6.pdf

Wingellina Resource Update Provides Framework for Optimised Mine Planning

Table 1. Mineral Resource statement for Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project at a 0.4% Ni cut-off

Highlights

Managing Director Comment

Overview

2016 and 2024 Resource Comparison

Table 2. 2016 and 2024 Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project MRE comparison

2024 Resource by Regolith Zone

Classified Resource for Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project, 0.4% Ni cut-off, by Regolith Zone

Table 3. 2016 and 2024 Wingellina Nickel-Cobalt Project MRE comparison by Regolith

Next Steps

Competent Person’s Statement

Forward-looking statements:

This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board.

Contacts

Appendix 1

1. Overview

2. Geology and Geological Interpretation

Deposit Geology and Mineralisation

Weathering

Geological Modelling

Limit of Drilling

Topographic Surface

Structural Models

Regolith Models

Lithological Models

Mineralisation Models

Table 6. Mineralisation Models.

Nickel

Cobalt

3. Drilling Techniques

4. Sampling and Subsampling Techniques

Assays

Density

5. Sample Analysis Method

6. Estimation Methodology

Software

Domaining

Geostatistical Analysis

Quantitative Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (QKNA)

Block Model

Grade Interpolation

Block Model Validation

Figure 12. East-west sections along 76080N, South Block, showing model cells and composite grades in real space coordinates (section thickness is 40 m).

7. Resource Classification

8. Mining and Metallurgical Methods

Appendix 2 - JORC CODE (2012), TABLE 1

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Section 4: Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

More from NICO RESOURCES LIMITED

NICO RESOURCES LIMITED Capital/Financing Update 2024