NORDIC RESOURCES LTD - Capital/Financing Update 2024

11 MARCH 2024

SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN HOTINVAARA RESOURCE ESTABLISHES PULJU AS GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT NICKEL SULPHIDE DISTRICT

Updated in-situ Mineral Resource Estimate sees contained nickel metal increase to 862,800t, demonstrating scale and significance of the Pulju Project.

HIGHLIGHTS

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) completed for the Hotinvaara Prospect:
MRE increased to 418Mt @ 0.21% Ni, 0.01% Co and 53ppm Cu for 862,800t of contained Ni, 40,000t of contained Co and 22,100t of contained Cu;
Indicated Resource now 42Mt @ 0.22% Ni, for 92,700t of contained Ni;
Inferred Resource of 376Mt @ 0.21% Ni, for 770,100t of contained Ni.
A substantial portion of the updated MRE is located within 250m of surface, including 90,338t of contained Ni in the Indicated category and 368,750t as Inferred.
The Company’s 28 holes drilled during 2023 have more than tripled the in-situ contained nickel estimate and the updated MRE now exceeds the upper end of the Company’s previously published Exploration Target.[1]
Previously reported test work indicated 83-94% of the total nickel is in sulphides, with excellent liberation characteristics.
Detailed metallurgical test work program is now underway.
Revised, in-situ MRE demonstrates that the Hotinvaara Prospect represents a fertile ultramafic system that hosts extensive disseminated nickel sulphides that continue well beyond the current exploration area.
Positions Pulju as a strategically significant project in the context of the rapidly growing battery materials supply chain in Europe.
Exploration planning underway to refine the next phase of exploration, with an emphasis on potential high-grade targets within the vast disseminated nickel sulphide complex defined at Pulju.

Nickel sulphide and battery metals explorer Nordic Nickel Limited (ASX: NNL ; Nordic, or the Company ) is pleased to announce an updated in-situ JORC (2012) Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the Hotinvaara Prospect ( Hotinvaara ) at its flagship, 100%-owned Pulju Nickel Project ( Pulju, or the Project ) in Finland following an extensive drilling campaign in 2023.

Pulju is located in the Central Lapland Greenstone Belt (CLGB) of Finland, 50km north of Kittilä with access to world-class infrastructure, grid power, national highway, an international airport and, most importantly, Europe’s only two nickel smelters. The municipality of Kittilä also hosts western Europe’s largest gold mine, Suurikuusikko, operated by Agnico Eagle.

This updated MRE establishes Pulju as a globally significant nickel sulphide project, particularly given its proximity to the fast-growing European battery materials and EV sector.

1 ASX release “Nordic Delivers Maiden 133.6Mt Mineral Resource – 278,520t and 12,560t Co”, 7th July 2022.

The known nickel mineralisation in the CLGB is typically associated with ultramafic cumulate and komatiitic rocks with high-grade, massive sulphide lenses and veins enveloped by very large, lower grade disseminated nickel near-surface. The disseminated nickel at the Hotinvaara Prospect is widespread, while the known massive sulphides and higher-grade accumulations remain the primary target for upcoming drill campaigns at Hotinvaara.

The revised in-situ JORC (2012) MRE of 418Mt @ 0.21% Ni, is focused primarily on the potential of the near-surface disseminated mineralisation. Importantly, the area containing the MRE is limited solely to the Hotinvaara Exploration Licence area, which represents just 5km[2 ] of Nordic’s total prospective project area of 240km[2] at the Pulju Project.

Management Comment

Nordic Nickel Managing Director, Todd Ross, said the substantial increase in the in-situ MRE reflected the success of the Company’s maiden drill program in 2023, with the outcomes demonstrating the enormous scale and significance of the Pulju Project.

“Achieving a more than threefold increase in overall tonnages and contained metal is a fantastic result for our shareholders which really puts Pulju on the global nickel map,” he said.

“While cautioning that this is an in-situ MRE and further work is underway to fully establish its economic potential, the updated MRE clearly establishes the size of the disseminated nickel sulphide system – which remains open in almost all directions. It is also particularly significant that the updated MRE represents just two per cent of our overall landholding in North Finland.

“The revised MRE shows that Hotinvaara is a very fertile ultramafic system with disseminated sulphides now defined over a vast area. Our geology team, supported and advised by some of the world’s best nickel sulphide experts, believe this represents a clear marker or pathfinder to potential zones of higher-grade mineralisation, as well as delineating a major deposit in its own right.

“Strategically, this will be our focus over the coming months as we progress further studies to evaluate the disseminated mineralisation – principally detailed metallurgical testwork.

“The discovery of a significant zone of Sakatti-style mineralisation at Pulju could quickly transform the project and elevate the importance of the disseminated mineralisation already defined.

“We believe that Pulju is a project that is perfectly positioned to benefit from what we expect to be a significant recovery in the global nickel market in the coming years as the Western World seeks new sources of Class-1 nickel.

“European end-users in particular are already looking for potential sources of high-quality ‘green nickel’ to fuel the EV and battery industries of the next decade. Cheap Indonesian nickel is simply not an option for these customers, and that is the gap in the market we are chasing.

“European battery makers and auto giants are in the market for raw materials that come from within Europe and have solid green credentials. There aren’t many new mines in this part of the world to meet that demand – and that’s where projects like Pulju come in.

“This updated MRE sets a very strong value foundation for Nordic Nickel and provides us with an excellent launch pad to move forward into our second year of operations in Finland. We are looking forward to a busy year ahead with the resumption of drilling, metallurgical testwork results and other strategic developments that could significantly enhance the project.”

Mineral Resource Estimate

This JORC (2012) MRE was prepared for Nordic by independent resource consultant, Adam Wheeler (see Competent Person statement below) using all available assay data as of February 2024, namely historical data plus drilling and assay results from Nordic Nickel’s 2023 program.

The updated MRE now totals 418Mt @0.21% Ni, 0.01% Co and 53ppm Cu for 862Kt of contained Ni, 40kt of contained Co and 22.1kt of contained Cu . This MRE replaces the previous in-situ Hotinvaara MRE completed by Mr Wheeler in 2022 ( refer to Company announcement “Nordic Delivers Maiden 133.6Mt Mineral Resource” dated 7[th] July 2022 ).

Table 1:Comparison between 2022 MRE and 2024 MRE at 0.15% cut-off

		2022 MRE	2022 MRE
Indicated Inferred TOTAL	Tonnage (Mt)	Grade Ni Total (%) Co (ppm) Cu (ppm)	Contained Metal Ni (Kt) Co (Kt) Cu (Kt)
	20.9 112.7 133.6	0.22 100 56 0.21 94 57 0.21 95 57	46.5 2.09 1.18 232 10.56 6.45 278.5 12.65 7.62

		2024 MRE
Indicated Inferred TOTAL	Tonnage (Mt)	Grade Ni Total (%) Co (ppm) Cu (ppm)	Contained Metal Ni (Kt) Co (Kt) Cu (Kt)
	42 376 418	0.22 99.5 56.3 0.2 95.3 52.4 0.21 95.7 52.8	92.7 4.2 2.4 770.1 35.8 19.7 862.8 40 22.1

==> picture [399 x 431] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Comparison of the 2022 and 2024 mineral resource block models projected to surface.

Location

The location of the Pulju Project is shown in Figures 2 and 3. The Project area has few permanent inhabitants and most of the land is owned by Metsähallitus (Forestry Office, Finnish Government).

Pulju is located 195km from Boliden’s Kevitsa Ni, Cu, Au-PGE mine and 9.5Mtpa processing plant in Sodankyla, Finland (Figure 3). Kevitsa provides feed for the 19ktpa Harjavalta smelter which is approximately 950km to the south and processes concentrate from Kevitsa’s low grade disseminated nickel sulphide ore (Resource Ni grade ~0.2%). Europe’s only other smelter is Terrafame’s 37ktpa Sotkamo smelter which is located 560km from Pulju (Figure 2).

==> picture [496 x 407] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Location of the Pulju Project and Europe’s entire nickel smelting and refining capacity.

==> picture [485 x 336] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Pulju Project area showing location of the granted Hotinvaara licence (dark outline to the west).

Geological setting and mineralisation

The Paleoproterozoic supracrustal rocks of the Pulju Greenstone Belt (PGB) cover an area of 10 x 20km in the north-western part of the Central Lapland Greenstone Belt (CLGB), as shown in Figure 4. The CLGB in northern Finland, together with its continuations in northern Norway, Sweden, and Russian Karelia, forms one of the largest known Paleoproterozoic greenstone belts in the world.

The CLGB is comprised of three subterrains: the Kuusamo-Salla greenstone belt, the Kolari-KittiläSodankylä greenstone belt and the PGB. The CLGB has been compared to other prospective greenstone belts such as the Norseman-Wiluna, Abitibi, and Zimbabwe Craton greenstone belts and is believed to be an equally prospective but underexplored area for magmatic Ni-Cu-(PGE) and gold orogenic deposits.

A regional geological map of the CLGB is shown in Figure 5 and a local geological map in Figure 6. The belt can be traced into Norway where it joins the Karasjok greenstone belt. In its lower part, the PGB consists of a metasedimentary unit (quartzites and biotite-hornblende gneisses) and minor mafic metavolcanic rocks (Sietkuoja formation) of the Sodankylä group.

==> picture [449 x 434] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Simplified geological map of northern Finland.

==> picture [436 x 285] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Geological map of the CLGB from the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK).

==> picture [434 x 308] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6: Local Geology of the Pulju Project. Geology from GTK.

Komatiites are interbedded with sulphide-bearing metasedimentary rocks and metavolcanic rocks. The metasedimentary unit (paraschists with graphite-bearing interlayers) of the Vittaselkä formation (Savukoski group) forms the uppermost part of the stratigraphical succession in the PGB.

The komatiitic rocks of the PGB can be subdivided into two groups:

(1) non-differentiated komatiitic lava flows (i.e. tremolite-chlorite rocks) without significant cumulate portions; and
(2) differentiated komatiitic lava flows with extensive cumulate bodies (i.e. tremolite-chlorite serpentine rocks to serpentinites and olivine rocks).

Non-differentiated komatiitic lava flows apparently occur as independent layers together with mafic metavolcanic rocks of the Mertavaara formation. These rocks are characterised by well-preserved primary structures including volcanic breccias, pillows, and tuffogenic layering. They have been correlated with similar komatiites in the Sattasvaara formation of the Savukoski group (same as host rocks of Sakatti, Kevitsa deposits) and the Karasjok greenstone belt.

Deviating from the stratigraphic position of the non-differentiated lava flows, differentiated komatiitic lava flows occur in association with S-bearing metasediments and calc-silicate rocks occurring in the lower parts of the Mertavaara formation. Differentiated lava flows are typically coarse-grained and less foliated than non-differentiated lava flows. Primary magmatic textures have not been recognised in differentiated lava flows. The gradual change from tremolite-chlorite serpentine rocks to pure serpentines indicates internal differentiation of flow units into zones. In some places, tremolite-chlorite rocks occur as interbeds within sulphide-bearing metasediments and irregular masses within cumulates.

Komatiites and associated supracrustal rocks were folded and sheared in at least four deformation phases and affected by hydrothermal alteration in several stages. Relicts of an olivine spinifex texture were discovered in one drill core in the Hotinvaara area. The olivine cumulates are very heterogeneous, medium- to coarse-grained rocks, in which primary magmatic minerals and textures are not preserved. The cumulate portion consists of various serpentine-chlorite-tremolite rocks (±carbonate-talc) to almost pure olivine rocks (i.e. metadunites and metaperidotites). The metaperidotites contain metamorphic olivine, phlogopite, and pyroxenes. Accessory opaque minerals include chromite, magnetite, ilmenite, and Fe-Ni-Cu sulphides. Some chromite grains with an irregular form and without typical magnetite rims are also interpreted to be of metamorphic origin. Magnetite occurs as a fine-grained dissemination and dust, or forms crosscutting veinlets. Some magnetite was produced by oxidation of sulphides (Papunen, 1998).

Deposit Type

The Hotinvaara Ni-(Cu) mineralisation was discovered as a result of exploration carried out by Outokumpu Oy in the early 1980s (Inkinen et al., 1984). Exploration activities of the company were mainly focused on an approximately 6km-long and 1.3km-wide zone in the Hotinvaara and Mertavaara areas where the komatiitic cumulates are most abundant. There are also other smaller Ni-(Cu) occurrences (e.g. Mertavaara and Siettelöjoki) in the PGB.

The Hotinvaara deposit is composed mainly of disseminated Fe-Ni-Cu sulphides, but massive to semi-massive sulphides have also been intersected. The mineralisation is mainly hosted by strongly metamorphosed olivine meso- and adcumulates derived from Al-undepleted komatiitic melts. Several mineralisation styles are present at Pulju:

(1) massive sulphide or vein deposits, which commonly occur at the base of komatiitic cumulate bodies;
(2) disseminated sulphide deposits within komatiitic cumulate bodies;
(3) hydrothermal-metamorphic deposits, which were originally magmatic but have been modified by post-magmatic processes (typically in country rocks); and

(4) tectonic sulphide deposits associated with fault or shear zones.

The known Ni-mineralisation is strongly associated with these most ultramafic cumulate units. High grade cores are being enveloped by very large, lower grade disseminated envelopes, both in the western and eastern cumulate belt. The olivine cumulate body that hosts the mineralisation is approximately 2,400m x 1,300m in size and may be structurally thickened. Ni-(Cu) mineralisation, as defined by drilling, is roughly NE-trending along this zone, and has been intersected over a zone of ∼ 1,400m along strike, ∼ 1,100m across strike and ∼ 200m deep below the surface. The disseminated mineralisation occurs in several subzones without any sharp contacts. Massive to semi-massive sulphides, presumably vein-style, occur at the basal contact of the cumulate pile or close to the contact between the cumulates and intervening sediments.

Ultramafic host rocks hosting the Hotinvaara mineralisation have gone through several episodes of alteration and metamorphism during their geological history. This has resulted in almost complete destruction of primary igneous minerals and magmatic rock textures. No primary igneous sulphide textures remain, but all sulphides have recrystallised and intergrown with silicates during metamorphism.

The most abundant sulphide minerals at Hotinvaara are pyrrhotite and pentlandite. In addition, chalcopyrite, cubanite, violarite, mackinawite and valleriite are present. Secondary pyrite+marcasite, bravoite are present in subordinate amounts. Sulphides are mainly present as uniform dissemination of anhedral, mono- or polymineralic grains and aggregates. Grain size is usually within 200-400µm.

During the medium-grade regional metamorphism, pyrrhotite was “cleaned” from pentlandite exsolutions and pentlandite grains grew larger. In the near-surface environment (<100m vertical depth) in the serpentine-altered cumulates, pentlandite shows ubiquitous alteration to mackinawite and to lesser extent to violarite and valleriite. Since at deeper levels in the non-serpentinised cumulates pentlandite remains unaltered, mackinawite alteration can be attributed to low temperature alteration by surface waters.

Drilling

Seventy-nine (79) diamond drill holes have been drilled in total within the Hotinvaara resource area totaling 25,104m. The majority of the older drill holes were shallow (<300m) as Outokumpu were focused on open pit nickel opportunities at that time and many holes ended in ultramafic cumulates with disseminated Ni-sulphides.

The first twenty-seven (27) drill holes were drilled at Hotinvaara by Outokumpu Mining Oy between 1982 and 1984 (1982: 1,301.0m; 1983: 1,835.4m and 1984: 1,863.0m).

This first drilling phase at Hotinvaara mainly targeted geochemical Ni-Cr-Co till anomalies which led to the discovery of thick mineralised ultramafic cumulate bodies.

==> picture [414 x 281] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7: Schematic cross section of "Seven Mineralisation".

Eight (8) follow-up holes were drilled in 1987 at the Hotinsaajo target, ca. 1,000m NNE from Hotinvaara and the “Seven Mineralisation” (Figure 7), leading to discovery of very thick, MgO- and Cr-rich, mineralised komatiitic cumulate bodies (Lahtinen, 1992).

The next sixteen (16) drill hole program was completed in 1998 (HOV-36 to HOV-51) targeting mainly the Hotinsaajo area. These showed very thick intersections of disseminated Ni-sulphides with thinner high-grade, massive and semi-massive Ni-sulphide zones.

The 28 holes drilled in 2023 were mostly aimed at testing the deposit at depth, as well as extending the deposit laterally, particularly towards the south. Plan and 3D views of all the drilling data, highlighting the holes from this final campaign, are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.

==> picture [441 x 475] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8: Plan view of Hotinvaara drill locations over magnetic (TMI) image.

==> picture [425 x 374] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9: Sectional view of Hotinvaara drilling looking north-west.

Sample Preparation

For samples collected pre-2022, mineralisation was determined by NNL using visual observations and pXRF analysis. All core (51 drillholes) was logged in detail and sent for assaying by Outokumpu Oy. The 41 drillholes that exist in the Finnish National drill core archive in Loppi have been relogged by NNL. NNL also made susceptibility and density measurements for each lithology.

Sample analysis occurred in two stages:

Historical sampling done by Outokumpu Oy at the time of the drilling campaigns in the 1980s and 1990s. Holes HOV001 to HOV051 have been analysed by ICP, XRF and/or ASS-analysis methods. For the holes HOV001 - HOV027, the core was analysed in Rautaruukki Oy Raahen Rautatehdas laboratory in Raahe, Finland. In a separate Ni-program, 63 ultramafic samples from HOV001 - HOV027 were analysed in OKME/Outokumpu laboratory for the Ni and Fe content of the olivine and/or pyroxenes and amphiboles. These were analysed with XRF and ASS-analysis methods. The laboratory used for assaying of holes HOV028 to HOV051 is unknown. No quality control procedures were reported.
New sampling done by NNL during 2020 and 2021. All samples were analysed by Eurofins Labtium. Samples were sent to Eurofins Labtium Oy Sodankylä for sample preparation. For historical pulps, the sample preparation was done by subsampling matt rolling technique (code 36). For the core samples, the sample preparation was drying sample at 70°C (code 10), fine

crushing by jaw crusher to >70% at <2mm (code 31), pulverizing in a hardened steel bowl (max. 1.5kg) (code 51). The analysis 240P (sulphide selective leach; ICP-OES finish) and 703P (fire assay fusion; ICP-OES finish) was done in Sodankylä, 304P/M (four acid digestion; ICPOES/ICP-MS finish) in Kuopio and 175Xa (pressed pellet; XRF finish) in Oulu University material centre.

A database consisting of 2,839 samples was compiled by NNL from the historic assays and newly acquired data. Where there was an overlap in different analytical methods for a sample, final Ni, Cu and Co assays, values from the newly acquired data were preferentially selected over the historical results. This was based on the assumption that the modern analytical methods would be more accurate than historical methods. The final database consisted of 1,461 samples assayed by historical XRF, 471 samples by historical ICP, 243 samples by historical AAS and 664 samples by newly acquired 4-acid digest with ICP-OES finish (Eurofins method 304-P). Of the total database, 869 samples were also analysed following partial leach acid digestion to determine Ni-in-sulphide contents (Eurofins method 240P).

For samples collected post-2022, mineralisation was determined by NNL using visual observations and pXRF analysis. When the cut core samples were sent to ALS, they were bar-coded and logged into the Laboratory Information Management System, weighed, dried, and finely crushed to better than 70% passing 2 millimetres (Tyler 9 mesh, US Std. No.10) screen. Sub-samples of up to 250g were then taken using a Boyd rotary splitter and pulverised to better than 85% passing a 75 microns (Tyler 200 mesh, US Std. No. 200) screen.

For the post-2022 drilling of HOT holes, the core from 7 holes, covering 5,928m, had samples prepared at the Eurofins (EF) facility in Sodankyla. These samples were all subsequently assayed by EF. The drillhole information and significant intervals from the HOT program are included as Appendices 1 and 2 respectively.

In July 2023 sample preparation and assaying was transferred to ALS. The core from 16 holes, covering 6,771mm, had samples prepared at the ALS facility in Sodankyla. These samples were all subsequently assayed by EF.

Estimation Methodology

In the current study, resource estimation has been based on a conventional 3D block model, with estimated grades of Ni, Co and Cu. Nickel is reported as total nickel (nickel derived from both silicate and sulphide minerals). These resources are considered as potentially amenable to openpit mining.

The mineralised zone interpreted zones have reflect NE-SW trending mineralised cumulate lenses, a series of wireframe models were interpreted for Ni-mineralised zones, based on a cut-off of 1,500ppm Ni. A volumetric block was generated, using parent block sizes of 20m x 20m x 10m.

The primary group of samples within the mineralised zone structures were converted into approximately 5m downhole composites. During the compositing process, outlier grades were capped.

Grade estimation was completed using ordinary kriging (OK). Alternative grade values were also estimated using inverse-distance weighting (ID) and nearest neighbour estimation (NN), for validation purposes. Directional anisotropy was used to control the orientation of estimation search ellipses.

Resource classification criteria were based on criteria which included variography results and drillhole coverage.

Table 2: Modelled Zone Dimensions

Strike Length m	Overall Width m	Minimum Base Elevation *mRL*	Maximum Outcrop Elevation *mRL*	Maximum Depth m	True Thickness of Mineralised Zones M	Dip Range
1,700	1,900	-700	315	900	20-300	25-55O

A plan and 3D view showing all the drillholes available is presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. As can be seen from Figure 9, many of the new holes have been aimed at much deeper extensions.

Interpretation

Interpretation was done based on the following information:

Conceptual Geological Model. Previous work by Outokumpu geologists had demonstrated the Ni resources are generally located within the main Hotinvaara ultramafic olivine cumulate. The mineralisation is generally dipping at 30[o] -40[o] to the north-west.
Lithological Data. The lithological log data was plotted on Sections, as shown in Appendix E. The principal lithologies that are most likely to contain mineralisation are summarised below:
a. UCU Ultramafic cumulate - predominant lithology containing mineralisation. b. OSS Semi-massive sulphides.
c. USKR Skarn-ultramafic. d. USP Serpentinite.
Mineralised Zone Model. In addition to the information described in 1 and 2 above, an approximate cut-off 0.15%Ni was applied when interpreting mineralised zones in crosssection. The interpretation was done on W-E aligned sections, consistent with the drillhole layout. The 0.15% cut-off grade was selected as being at the lower end of potential economic cut-offs and is realistic in terms of zone continuity. A typical section displaying this interpretation is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

==> picture [414 x 183] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10: Example section with drillholes and Ni grades at 7555320mN.

==> picture [414 x 226] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11: Example drillholes and lithologies at 7555320mN.

In the development of the mineralised zone interpretation, the following geometric controls were applied:

Within any cross-section, intersections were extrapolated laterally for a distance roughly corresponding to the original intersection true thickness, and then pinched out up and downdip over a length of approximately 150m.
Along-strike, for any particular mineralised zone group, the ultimate cross-section with drillhole data was extrapolated outwards with the same size and shape for a distance of approximately 100m. The zone was then pinched out over a distance of 100m.

An overall plan of the all the interpreted mineralised zones in shown in Figure 12, and a corresponding 3D view is shown in Figure 13. There were 12 different interpreted zones, assigned with numeric ZONE numbers.

==> picture [467 x 363] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12: Overall plan view of Mineralised Zones interpretation.

==> picture [460 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 13: Overall 3D view of mineralised zones interpretation.

Nickel in Sulphide

Petrological analysis completed in 2022, in conjunction with mineral liberation characteristics of two bulk samples indicate between 83% and 94% of total nickel occurs in sulphides.

The study also highlighted that the primary nickel-bearing mineral species is pentlandite and that liberation characteristics were excellent, even at relatively large particle sizes.

With the updated drilling results, approximately 58% of the sample database now have both Ni total as well as Ni in Sulphide assays.

Comprehensive metallurgical test work is currently in progress with Blue Coast Research in British Columbia, Canada. The results should be available in Q3 2024 and an update to the MRE will be conducted later in the year that will incorporate the met test work and an updated 3D geological model.

Grade Estimation

The grade estimation process went through the following steps:

Orientation Modelling. The interpreted mineralised zone wireframes were used to generate orientation vectors with true dip and dip direction values. These data were estimated into the

block model, using inverse-distance weighting, and making true dip and dip direction block values, contained in the fields TRDIP and TRDIPDIR.

Ni Category Extrapolation. The three categories of Ni mineralisation were extrapolated within the mineralised zone blocks, into the Ni CAT field.
Ni and Co Grade Estimation. Within the mineralised zone blocks, grades of Ni and Co were estimated using ordinary kriging (OK), controlled by both the mineralised zones as well as the Ni grade categories. For validation purposes, additional grades were also estimated using inverse-distance weighting and nearest neighbour estimation.
Cu Grade Estimation. Cu grades were also estimated using OK, but without any effect of the Ni grade categories. This was because it appears that the Cu mineralisation appears not be so related to the Ni categorisation.
Ni in Sulphides Estimation . The ratio of Ni in sulphides was estimated using inverse-distance weighting (^2), using an indicator method.
Density Estimation . Density values were estimated using ordinary kriging (OK). Blocks without density measurements nearby were assigned the appropriate average density values appropriate to the zone id, and whether the blocks were internal or external to the mineralised zones.

A summary of the estimation parameters is shown in Table 3. As shown by the search distances of the 4[th] search volume, the maximum extent of grade extrapolation for Inferred resources, is 100m. The search distances are anisotropic, reflecting the much longer variographic ranges down-dip and along-strike, as opposed to cross-strike.

A typical cross-section of the estimated block model, with estimated Ni grades, is shown in Figure 14.

Table 3: Summary of Grade Estimation parameters

==> picture [378 x 242] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [463 x 430] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 14: Example cross section of model and composites, Ni.

Mineral Resource Classification

Based on the review of QAQC and the verification study results, it was decided that all of the available drillhole data could be used for resource estimation, and allocation of either Indicated or Inferred resources.

It is considered that no resources should be classified as Measured resources, owing chiefly to the insufficient QA/QC associated with the older drillhole data assays.

The resource classification criteria, which have been applied in the current study, are summarised below in Table 4.

Table 4: Resource Classification criteria

	Table 4: Resource Classification criteria
Class	Description
*Indicated*	At least 7 x 5m composites, from at at least 3 drillholes, within an 80m x 80m drilling grid
*Inferred*	Can be interpolated from a single hole, but extrapolation distance limited to 100m

These categories were set into the resource block models based on search volume references as well cross-sectional perimeter control. An example section showing this resource classification is shown in Figure 15. A series of oriented long sections showing the resultant Indicated resource limits, for each zone, is shown in Figure 16.

==> picture [414 x 385] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 15: Example cross section showing Resource Classification. Section at 7555320mN.

==> picture [416 x 551] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 16: 3d view of Indicated Resources extents within each zone.

Mineral Resource Reporting

For resource reporting purposes, a cut-off grade of 0.15% Ni (total Ni) was used. This cut-off grade level corresponds to a nickel price of $16,750/t Ni, along with assumed parameters summarised in Table 5. A summary overall evaluation of all in-situ resources is shown in Table 6, with a zone breakdown in Table 7 and elevation breakdown in Table 8. Grade-tonnage tables for Indicated resources are shown in Table 9 and for Inferred resources in Table 10.

Table 5: Example cut-off grade calculation.

Description	Units	Values
Price Ni Price Costs Mining Cost Processing Cost G&A Processing + G&A Total Costs Mill /Smelter Plant Ni Recovery Ni Payability Net Recovery/Payability Ni Conc Grade Ni Freight Cost Payable Metal TC/RC Mining Factors Dilution Mining Recovery Cut-Offs Breakeven Cut-Off Without Mining Cost Breakeven Cut-Off With MiningCost	$/t Ni $/t ore $/t ore $/t ore $/t ore $/t ore % % % % E/t Ni conc $/t Ni Mlb Ni kt Ni EurM $/t Ni % % %Ni %Ni	16,750 2.81 7.82 2.67 10.48 13.29 70.80% 90.00% 63.7% 9.2% 45.74 582 470.3 213.3 876 4,805 7% 93%
		0.15%
		0.20%
Notes . Cost/operational figures taken from Kevitsa Project, 2020

Table 6: Summary of in-situ resources

		Contained Metal
Resource Class	Tonnes Ni Total Co Cu Mt % ppm ppm	Ni Co Cu Kt Kt Kt
Indicated Inferred	42 0.22 99.5 56.3 376 0.20 95.3 52.4	92.7 4.2 2.4 770.1 35.8 19.7
Total	418 0.21 95.7 52.8	862.8 40.0 22.1

Cut-off = 0.15% Ni total
Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grades and metal content. Where these occur, they are not considered material.
The overall Ni in Sulphides proportion for Indicated resources was 72%.

Table 7: Zone breakdown of in-situ resources. Nickel reported as Total Nickel

ZONE	*Indicated*	*Inferred*
	Tonnes Ni Total Co Cu NiS Ratio Kt % ppm ppm %	Tonnes Ni Total Co Cu NiS Ratio Kt % ppm ppm %
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	516 0.21 126 150 61% 1,800 0.20 133 199 87% 16,903 0.23 89 40 68% 15,898 0.22 106 56 73% 0 0 6,470 0.21 98 54 74% 770 0.21 114 57 71%	106,139 0.20 89 47 57% 692 0.19 111 138 61% 722 0.18 65 17 61% 1,344 0.23 159 321 84% 38,611 0.21 96 64 64% 52,964 0.21 96 28 59% 8,327 0.20 83 92 91% 9,932 0.20 95 89 80% 115,562 0.20 97 55 67% 15,630 0.18 92 68 88% 23,282 0.20 114 38 33% 2,527 0.23 125 114 78%
TOTAL	42,356 0.22 99 56 72%	375,733 0.20 95 52 62%
	Notes . Cut-off 0.15% Nitotal

Table 8: Elevation breakdown of in-situ resources

	Table 8: Elevation breakdown of	in-situ resources
Elevation m	Indicated	Inferred
	Tonnes Ni Total Co Cu NiS Ratio Kt % *ppm* *ppm* %	Tonnes Ni Total Co Cu NiS Ratio Kt % *ppm* *ppm* %
300 to 350 250 to 300 200 to 250 150 to 200 100 to 150 50 to 100 0 to 50 -50 to 0 -100 to -50 -150 to -100 -200 to -150 -250 to -200 -300 to -250 -350 to -300 -400 to -350 -450 to -400 -500 to -450 -550 to -500 -600 to -550 -650 to -600 -700 to -650 -750 to -700 -800 to -750	8 0.23 125 77 78% 3,242 0.20 106 55 82% 11,963 0.21 100 63 74% 14,083 0.22 100 58 69% 8,680 0.24 101 52 70% 3,136 0.22 90 42 68% 900 0.19 89 44 71% 299 0.18 87 36 54% 47 0.21 107 55 53% - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	551 0.22 111 63 81% 14,961 0.20 97 61 77% 39,931 0.21 94 61 74% 46,547 0.21 96 69 74% 41,408 0.20 94 59 70% 34,949 0.21 94 51 63% 33,692 0.21 96 50 60% 31,828 0.21 96 40 55% 27,638 0.21 96 43 57% 22,745 0.20 92 42 58% 19,970 0.21 93 46 59% 15,900 0.21 90 44 59% 10,593 0.20 87 43 57% 6,358 0.19 87 48 56% 4,619 0.19 86 65 59% 3,724 0.19 85 77 60% 3,357 0.19 104 57 44% 3,703 0.18 117 47 30% 4,860 0.18 115 45 27% 4,203 0.19 118 36 19% 3,018 0.20 120 22 12% 1,157 0.20 115 18 13% 20 0.16 99 44 23%
Total	42,356 0.22 99 56 72%	375,733 0.20 95 52 62%
	Notes . Cut-off 0.15% Nitotal

Table 9: Grade-tonnage Table - Indicated Resources. Nickel reported as total nickel.

==> picture [425 x 521] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Ni Cut-Off|Tonnes|Ni|Co|Cu|
|%|Mt|%|ppm|ppm|Indicated Resources|
|0.10|49.9|0.20|95.3|57.6|
|0.11|49.0|0.21|95.8|57.3|60|0.35|
|0.12|47.4|0.21|96.6|56.4|
|0.13|45.3|0.21|97.8|56.1|0.30|
|50|
|0.14|43.0|0.22|99.1|56.3|
|0.15|42.4|0.22|99.5|56.3|
|0.25|
|0.16|42.2|0.22|99.5|56.4|40|
|0.17|41.8|0.22|99.7|56.4|
|0.18|37.6|0.22|100.4|54.7|0.20|
|0.19|29.8|0.23|101.8|52.2|30|
|0.20|21.0|0.25|105.4|52.2|0.15|
|0.21|13.5|0.28|113.6|54.3|
|20|
|0.22|9.3|0.31|124.8|59.8|0.10|
|0.23|8.3|0.32|128.7|61.9|
|0.24|8.3|0.32|128.8|61.8|10|
|0.05|
|0.25|8.3|0.32|128.8|61.8|
|0.26|8.2|0.32|129.1|62.1|
|0|0.00|
|0.27|8.0|0.32|128.9|61.9|
|0.10|0.15|0.20|0.25|0.30|
|0.28|7.6|0.32|129.8|63.0|
|Ni Cut-Off %|
|0.29|6.9|0.32|131.1|64.3|
|0.30|5.7|0.33|133.0|64.1|
|Table 10: Grade-Tonnage table - Inferred Resources. Nickel reported as total nickel.|
|Ni Cut-Off|Tonnes|Ni|Co|Cu|
|%|Mt|%|ppm|ppm|Inferred Resources|
|0.10|451.7|0.19|91.76|55.06|
|0.11|433.9|0.19|92.79|54.71|500|0.40|
|0.12|417.9|0.20|93.56|54.00|
|450|
|0.13|399.5|0.20|94.26|53.00|0.35|
|0.14|383.6|0.20|95.01|52.71|400|
|0.15|375.7|0.20|95.28|52.38|0.30|
|0.16|372.5|0.21|95.42|52.34|350|
|0.17|351.9|0.21|96.17|52.33|300|0.25|
|0.18|299.5|0.21|97.36|51.77|
|0.19|229.5|0.22|100.17|53.19|250|0.20|
|0.20|160.5|0.23|104.63|55.18|
|200|
|0.21|106.1|0.25|110.85|55.00|0.15|
|0.22|69.1|0.27|117.17|58.08|150|
|0.23|46.5|0.29|126.81|67.36|0.10|
|100|
|0.24|38.9|0.30|131.96|72.96|
|0.25|38.4|0.30|132.38|73.40|50|0.05|
|0.26|32.3|0.31|137.82|80.05|
|0.27|26.4|0.31|142.02|81.79|0|0.00|
|0.10|0.15|0.20|0.25|0.30|
|0.28|21.2|0.32|146.14|83.88|
|0.29|16.5|0.34|151.57|88.16|Ni Cut-Off %|
|0.30|12.3|0.35|157.19|90.85|

----- End of picture text -----

Nickel in sulphide partial leach assay results indicate that approximately 75% of total nickel is sourced from sulphide minerals, and this agrees well with modelled Ni-in-Sulphide values above a depth of approximately 250m. Petrological analysis in conjunction with mineral liberation characteristics of two bulk samples indicate between 83% and 94% of total nickel occurs in sulphides. The study also highlighted that the primary nickel-bearing mineral species is pentlandite and that liberation characteristics were excellent, even at relatively large particle sizes.

Authorised for release by: Todd Ross – Managing Director

For further information please contact:

Nordic Nickel

Todd Ross – Managing Director

T: + 61 416 718 110 E: [email protected]

W: nordicnickel.com

Media: Read Corporate Nicholas Read

T: + 61 419 929 046

E: [email protected]

Competent Person Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Targeting and Results is based on, and fairly represents, information compiled and reviewed by Mr Andrew Pearce, who is an employee of Nordic Nickel Ltd, and is a Member of The Australian Institute of Geoscientists.

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources defined at Hotinvaara is based on information compiled by Mr Adam Wheeler who is a professional fellow (FIMMM), Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Mr Wheeler is an independent mining consultant.

Mr Pearce and Mr Wheeler have sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposits under consideration and to the activity which they are undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (the JORC Code 2012). Mr Pearce and Mr Wheeler consents to the inclusion in the report of matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

The Australian Securities Exchange has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or adequacy of this release.

Additional information on Nordic Nickel’s mineral resource contained within this announcement is extracted from the reports titled:

“Nordic delivers Maiden 133.6Mt Mineral Resource – 278,520t Ni and 12,560t Co” released on 7[th] July 2022.
“Moving loop electromagnetic survey expands mineralised footprint at Hotinvaara” released on 29[th] March 2023.
“Assays from first diamond drillhole confirm extensive nickel sulphide system at Pulju” released on 26[th] May 2023.
“Further wide zones of nickel sulphide mineralisation intersected at Pulju” released on 14[th] July 2023.
“Resource drilling continues to expand mineralised nickel footprint at Pulju” released on31[st] August 2023.
“Step-out hole intersects wide sulphide zone well beyond current resource at Hotinvaara prospect” released on 20[th] September 2023.
“More wide nickel intercepts highlight substantial resource upside” released on 18[th] October 2023.
“High-grade nickel sulphide intersected outside mineral resource” released on 14[th] November 2023.
“Drilling delivers widest higher grade nickel zone thus far at Pulju” released on 20[th] November 2023.
• Inkinen, O., Ilvonen, E., Pelkonen, R. (1984). Puljun liuskejakson ja Hotinvaaran tutkimukset 198284. Report 001/2742/OI,EO,RT/84/21 (in Finnish), 114 p
Papunen, H. (1998). Geology and ultramafic rocks of the Paleoproterozoic Pulju Greenstone Belt, Western Lapland. Integrated technologies for mineral exploration, Brite-EuRam BE-1117 GeoNickel Task 1.2: Mineralogy and modelling of Ni sulfide deposits in komatiitic/picritic extrusives. Technical Report 6.5, University of Turku, 57 p.
Wheeler, A. (2022). Resource Estimation for the Hotinvaara Prospect, Pulju Nickel Project, Finland.

Forward Looking Statement

This announcement contains forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, including reference to the conceptual Exploration Target area which surrounds the maiden Hotinvaara MRE described in this announcement. These forward-looking statements are expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. These statements reflect current expectations, intentions or strategies regarding the future and assumptions based on currently available information. Should one or more of the risks or uncertainties materialise, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary from the expectations, intentions and strategies described in this announcement. No obligation is assumed to update forward looking statements if these beliefs, opinions and estimates should change or to reflect other future developments.

APPENDIX 1 Nordic Nickel Diamond Collar Location Table

Hole ID	Easting (mE)	Northing (mE)	Elev. (m)	Azi (°)	Dip (°)	Depth (m)
HOT001	392,847	7,555,700	298.9	90	-70	1,109.50
HOT002	392,760	7,556,140	285.2	315	-60	560.1
HOT003	392,910	7,555,595	301.1	290	-75	1,112.70
HOT004	392,467	7,555,979	278.6	270	-70	749.3
HOT005	392,730	7,555,340	294.1	0	-70	821
HOT006	391,947	7,555,317	256.4	90	-70	772.7
HOT007	392,052	7,555,555	259.1	90	-65	700.5
HOT008	391,725	7,555,810	260.1	90	-75	359.7
HOT009	391,969	7,555,750	259.8	90	-60	287.1
HOT010	391,979	7,555,020	254.9	90	-70	862.9
HOT011	391,779	7,555,386	253.5	110	-60	509.2
HOT012	391,880	7,555,150	252.9	90	-70	977.8
HOT013	392,054	7,555,324	261.5	270	-70	689.7
HOT014	392,221	7,555,471	269.6	90	-70	466.6
HOT015	392,082	7,555,219	262.3	90	-65	482.5
HOT016	392,514	7,555,164	304	0	-70	512.9
HOT017	392,635	7,555,042	308.3	90	-65	464.7
HOT018	393,002	7,555,870	312.4	90	-65	311.2
HOT019	393,027	7,555,885	313.5	90	-60	140.8
HOT020	392,789	7,555,604	291.1	87	-51	497.3
HOT021	393,040	7,555,715	315.8	315	-70	437.9
HOT022	393,229	7,556,070	310.9	90	-60	293.8
HOT023	393,332	7,555,939	316.4	90	-60	350.7
HOT024	393,052	7,555,941	312.3	135	-70	366
HOT025	392,178	7,555,220	273.3	90	-65	350.9
HOT026	392,351	7,554,864	280.2	90	-65	497.4
HOT027	392,007	7,555,023	255.6	270	-60	350.8
HOT028	392,617	7,554,758	294.9	315	-65	446.9

Datum: TM35FIN

APPENDIX 2 Nordic Nickel Significant Intercepts

Hole_ID	From (m) To (m) Int. (m) Ni (%) Co (%) Cu (%)
HOT001	6.4 100.55 94.15 0.198 0.01 0.008 *incl.* *96.5* 98 *1.5* *0.583* *0.028* *0.037*
	113 119 6 0.187 0.014 0.018
	149.3 188 38.7 0.259 0.017 0.032 *incl.* *174.7* *175.35* *0.65* *1.49* *0.073* *0.03* *and* *180.8* *183.75* *2.95* *0.683* *0.055* *0.133*
	199.8 214 14.2 0.233 0.011 0.005
	*incl.* *209* *210* 1 *0.541* *0.02* *0.009*
	226 264 38 0.184 0.01 0.006 *incl.* *239.15* *239.8* *0.65* *1.086* *0.059* *0.04*
	276 369.3 93.3 0.169 0.008 0.004
	395.15 446 50.85 0.162 0.007 0.013
	455.4 460.9 5.5 0.22 0.009 0.004
	471.05 475.9 4.85 0.228 0.014 0.009
	498.55 500.9 2.35 0.167 0.008 0.002
	511.55 591.35 79.8 0.193 0.009 0.007
	598.35 624 25.65 0.237 0.012 0.01
	*incl.* *601* *602* 1 *0.569* *0.024* *0.026*
	*and* *605* *606* 1 *0.802* *0.028* *0.02*
HOT002	12.1 14 1.9 0.196 0.007 0.003
	119.5 169.35 49.85 0.181 0.009 0.008
	182.15 189.6 7.45 0.166 0.007 0.005
HOT003	5.4 68 62.6 0.155 0.008 0.003
	76 80 4 0.19 0.008 0.002
	104 131.35 27.35 0.179 0.009 0.004
	140.2 204 63.8 0.224 0.011 0.042 *incl.* *143* *146* 3 *0.562* *0.032* *0.077* *and* *164* *165* 1 *0.52* *0.029* *0.065*
	211 274 63 0.221 0.009 0.01
	*incl.* *214* *216* 2 *0.534* *0.024* *0.045*
	*and* *222* *224* 2 *0.636* *0.023* *0.019*
	284 304 20 0.256 0.011 0.005 *incl.* *288* *290.4* *2.4* *0.734* *0.027* *0.018* *incl.* *288* *288.4* *0.4* *1.68* *0.06* *0.033*
	304 352 48 0.193* 0.008 0.001
	362 463 101 0.207* 0.008 0.001
	473 503 30 0.206* 0.008 0.002

Hole_ID	From (m) To (m) Int. (m) Ni (%) Co (%) Cu (%)
	543 549 6 0.202* 0.009 0.004
	553 555 2 0.157 0.007 0.002
	577 579 2 0.193 0.009 0.006
	587 599 12 0.182 0.008 0.006
	626 628 2 0.221 0.01 0.017
	644.65 652.1 7.45 0.167 0.008 0.01
	966 974.6 8.6 0.150* 0.008 0.004
	984.9 1,012.00 27.1 0.167* 0.01 0.001
HOT004	88 128 40 0.164 0.007 0.005
	140.8 169 28.2 0.156 0.008 0.01
	179 204.7 25.7 0.201 0.032 0.064
	221.5 241.9 20.4 0.195 0.014 0.067
	256 272 16 0.158 0.008 0.011
	286 372 86 0.179 0.009 0.006
	427 430 3 0.157 0.007 0.003
HOT005	41.9 72 30.1 0.167 0.008 0.003
	81.5 135.5 54 0.193 0.01 0.006
	143.5 155.5 12 0.187 0.007 0.002
	161.8 186 24.2 0.158 0.007 0.003
	194 196 2 0.158 0.007 0.002
	204 244 40 0.194 0.008 0.003
	244 606 362 0.191* 0.007 0.001
	614 633 19 0.201 0.01 0.005
	633 649 16 0.163* 0.006 0.002
	675.8 677 1.2 0.166 0.016 0.029
	695.45 718 22.55 0.157 0.007 0.013
	726 743 17 0.168 0.007 0.006
	759.1 775 15.9 0.217* 0.007 0.003
	775 792 17 0.176 0.007 0.007
	800.1 803 2.9 0.184 0.01 0.012
	807.35 808.65 1.3 0.169 0.009 0.021
HOT006	20.9 220 199.1 0.223 0.009 0.006 *incl.* *183* *184* 1 *0.606* *0.026* *0.013* *and* *203.85* *206* *2.15* *0.828* *0.053* *0.124*
	247 248 1 0.151 0.026 0.032
	250.1 252 1.9 0.151 0.011 0.015
	256 258.3 2.3 0.152 0.011 0.014
	270 272 2 0.163 0.007 0.002
	340.7 366 25.3 0.291 0.009 0.002
	*incl.* *359.6* *360.2* *0.6* *4.66* *0.102* *0.023*
	374 448.7 74.7 0.177* 0.007 0.001
	455.85 472.1 16.25 0.252* 0.008 0.003

Hole_ID	From (m) To (m) Int. (m) Ni (%) Co (%) Cu (%)
	482.4 484 1.6 0.196 0.006 0.005
	497 548.6 51.6 0.177* 0.007 0.002
	566 568 2 0.165* 0.007 0.002
	579.2 630 50.8 0.193 0.009 0.005
	630 650 20 0.177* 0.008 0.005
	650 658 8 0.254 0.015 0.015
	658 689 31 0.176* 0.009 0.008
	689 719 30 0.178 0.009 0.006
HOT007	15.2 102 86.8 0.215 0.013 0.014
	118.1 119.9 1.8 0.219 0.009 0.007
	135.25 137.15 1.9 0.182 0.011 0.018
	156 164 8 0.209 0.007 0.001
	164 476 312 0.221* 0.008 0.001
	476 482.2 6.2 0.184 0.007 0.002
	504.55 516 11.45 0.21 0.01 0.005
	516 548 32 0.214* 0.01 0.004
	548 581.25 33.25 0.155 0.008 0.008
	586.8 588.8 2 0.233 0.015 0.017
	595.15 597.15 2 0.281 0.014 0.008
	601.15 611.65 10.5 0.171 0.009 0.007
	621.65 629.75 8.1 0.209 0.012 0.018
	634.25 635 0.75 0.224 0.015 0.132
HOT008	8.5 10 1.5 0.193* 0.006 0.002
	18 24 6 0.192 0.007 0.005
	32 37.7 5.7 0.164 0.011 0.022
HOT009	14.1 17.3 3.2 0.19 0.007 0.002
	21.7 24 2.3 0.152* 0.006 0.001
	26 30 4 0.195 0.007 0.002
	34 36 2 0.157 0.007 0.001
	45.65 71 25.35 0.165 0.006 0.002
	96 112.6 16.6 0.231* 0.007 0
	117 123.85 6.85 0.248 0.015 0.063
	131 203 72 0.191* 0.007 0.001
	205 213.6 8.6 0.174 0.006 0.002
	228 233.8 5.8 0.187 0.008 0.004
	250.25 287.1 36.85 0.208* 0.007 0
HOT010	17 35 18 0.172 0.009 0.011
	128 150 22 0.192 0.01 0.008
	160 174 14 0.235 0.012 0.01
	214 216 2 0.185 0.011 0.034
	231.6 269 37.4 0.207 0.01 0.026

Hole_ID	From (m) To (m) Int. (m) Ni (%) Co (%) Cu (%)
	398 449 51 0.172 0.009 0.006
	491 561 70 0.184 0.007 0.003
	594 719 125 0.179* 0.007 0.001
	727 762 35 0.188* 0.008 0.004
HOT011	33 35 2 0.156 0.007 0.005
	39 41 2 0.168 0.006 0.008
	86.5 88.25 1.75 0.247 0.016 0.023
	103.5 136 32.5 0.24 0.008 0.003
	*incl.* *132* *134* 2 *0.529* *0.015* *0.008*
	144 160 16 0.169 0.006 0.001
	170 224.65 54.65 0.217* 0.007 0.001
	236 277 41 0.170* 0.007 0.001
	295 297.5 2.5 0.164* 0.007 0
	300.5 304.3 3.8 0.182 0.006 0.001
	316.3 363.6 47.3 0.155 0.008 0.009
	390 397.1 7.1 0.184 0.017 0.038
	412.1 418 5.9 0.171 0.009 0.004
HOT012	14 20 6 0.207 0.01 0.03
	37 62 25 0.165 0.011 0.054
	101 104.1 3.1 0.18 0.009 0.008
	113 115 2 0.178 0.015 0.059
	126.4 198.85 72.45 0.176 0.01 0.009
	243.65 304 60.35 0.162 0.009 0.006
	344 346.6 2.6 0.218 0.011 0.014
	356.9 360.4 3.5 0.186 0.009 0.006
	391.5 393 1.5 0.3 0.016 0.036
	405 416.8 11.8 0.225 0.013 0.018
	425 458 33 0.226 0.008 0.002 *incl.* *452* *454* 2 *0.501* *0.015* *0.007*
	458 468 10 0.190* 0.008 0.002
	472 514 42 0.263 0.014 0.015 *incl.* *483* *487.15* *4.15* *0.58* *0.054* *0.106*
	514 560 46 0.206* 0.009 0.001
	560 588.5 28.5 0.181 0.009 0.006
	595.2 596.2 1 0.777 0.084 0.023
	603.18 616.5 13.32 0.181 0.008 0.006
	625.8 643.8 18 0.162 0.007 0.002
	698 702.93 4.93 0.161* 0.008 0.002
	708.95 756 47.05 0.165 0.008 0.022
	771.6 773.8 2.2 0.151 0.009 0.007
	789.25 791.75 2.5 0.203 0.008 0.005
	810.5 812.85 2.35 0.159 0.008 0.016
	820.4 822.55 2.15 0.213 0.01 0.008

Hole_ID	From (m) To (m) Int. (m) Ni (%) Co (%) Cu (%)
	828.46 833.85 5.39 0.176 0.009 0.012
	841 863.4 22.4 0.184 0.009 0.011
	873.7 924 50.3 0.185 0.009 0.009
	930 975.07 45.07 0.166* 0.008 0.005
HOT013	4.1 122 117.9 0.217 0.008 0.003 *incl.* 96 98 2 *0.6* *0.017* *0.01*
	130 160.6 30.6 0.221* 0.008 0.002
	172.25 204 31.75 0.184 0.011 0.007
	216 314 98 0.208 0.011 0.006
	349 434 85 0.223 0.009 0.003
	442 537.85 95.85 0.203 0.009 0.005
	*incl.* *504.36* *505.82* *1.46* *0.861* *0.03* *0.028*
HOT014	15.75 36 20.25 0.166 0.007 0.004
	49.4 72 22.6 0.19 0.006 0.001
	89 130 41 0.207 0.008 0.002
	137.63 240 102.37 0.2 0.007 0.001
	296.5 331.5 35 0.211 0.009 0.002
	374.4 415.85 41.45 0.208 0.012 0.01
	424 430 6 0.199 0.011 0.005
HOT015	14.55 17.65 3.1 0.192 0.008 0.004
	29.65 42 12.35 0.207 0.01 0.006
	111.35 126.45 15.1 0.167 0.007 0.002
	155.5 156.3 0.8 0.158 0.05 0.099
	171.15 197.25 26.1 0.194 0.011 0.01
	209.6 212.6 3 0.154 0.01 0.006
	220.3 284.6 64.3 0.19 0.012 0.01
	331.9 389.25 57.35 0.167 0.008 0.004
	*incl.* *336.6* *338.2* *1.6* *0.529* *0.023* *0.018*
	406.9 415 8.1 0.167 0.008 0.009
	420.5 422.6 2.1 0.171 0.01 0.013
	442.65 482.5 39.85 0.197 0.012 0.011
HOT016	1.6 93.3 91.7 0.22 0.01 0.006
	*incl.* *35.5* *37.5* 2 *0.697* *0.025* *0.016*
	*and* *50.1* 52 *1.9* *0.506* *0.019* *0.009*
	117.6 132 14.4 0.252 0.011 0.005
	144 153 9 0.176 0.008 0.004
	164.7 201.4 36.7 0.178 0.011 0.009
	216 380.15 164.15 0.203 0.009 0.002
	387 412.6 25.6 0.199* 0.008 0
	412.6 439 26.4 0.592 0.017 0.007
	*incl.* *412.6* *418.7* *6.1* *0.735* *0.02* *0.009*
	*and* *420* *424* 4 *0.774* *0.02* *0.01*
	*and* *428* *431.35* *3.35* *0.913* *0.024* *0.012*

Hole_ID	From (m) To (m) Int. (m) Ni (%) Co (%) Cu (%)
	*incl.* *428* *429.2* *1.2* *1.015* *0.026* *0.01*
	*and* *433* *435* 2 *0.519* *0.015* *0.005*
	439 462.75 23.75 0.210* 0.008 0.001
	474.1 512.9 38.8 0.246* 0.009 0
HOT017	3.8 6 2.2 0.221* 0.013 0.001
	27 30 3 0.227* 0.012 0.001
	43 46 3 0.227* 0.012 0
	60 63 3 0.226* 0.012 0.001
	91 98.3 7.3 0.197* 0.01 0.001
	204.65 291 86.35 0.205* 0.009 0.001
	298.9 403.3 104.4 0.204 0.011 0.001
HOT018	10 22 12 0.153 0.01 0.015
	34 218 184 0.209 0.01 0.005
	287.25 311.2 23.95 0.218 0.008 0.003
HOT019	5.4 10 4.6 0.173 0.014 0.026
	19 26 7 0.151 0.01 0.024
	37.55 140.8 103.25 0.187 0.009 0.005
HOT020	92 214 122 0.208 0.009 0.003 *incl.* *127* *130* 3 *0.508* *0.02* *0.009*
	238 245.45 7.45 0.164 0.008 0.005
	257.8 318 60.2 0.179 0.008 0.004
	347 479.3 132.3 0.219 0.011 0.008
HOT021	10 205 195 0.213 0.012 0.011
	220.5 268 47.5 0.243 0.01 0.003
	*incl.* *247* *250* 3 *0.59* *0.021* *0.008*
	330 437.9 107.9 0.17 0.009 0.004
HOT022	140.4 165 24.6 0.202 0.013 0.012
	174 178.9 4.9 0.163 0.009 0.016
	186 189 3 0.181 0.008 0.007
HOT023	11 13 2 0.175 0.021 0.067
	22.25 25.45 3.2 0.223 0.023 0.049
	35.85 177.6 141.75 0.215 0.011 0.008 *incl.* *154* *156* 2 *0.795* *0.035* *0.026*
	186.6 190.3 3.7 0.232 0.013 0.056
	198.4 258.9 60.5 0.212 0.01 0.006
HOT024	44.55 202 157.45 0.213 0.01 0.004
	284 287 3 0.172 0.01 0.005
	308.2 322 13.8 0.203 0.011 0.044
	340 342.3 2.3 0.262 0.01 0.007
	348 354 6 0.170* 0.017 0.038
HOT025	42.9 56.8 13.9 0.153 0.011 0.014

Hole_ID	From (m) To (m) Int. (m) Ni (%) Co (%) Cu (%)
	93.6 109.05 15.45 0.167 0.019 0.042
	131 132.66 1.66 0.186 0.012 0.007
	133.57 135.57 2 0.178 0.008 0.004
	139 147 8 0.151 0.008 0.004
	156 162 6 0.166 0.008 0.008
	271.5 324.5 53 0.231 0.012 0.015 *incl.* *282* *284* 2 *0.587* *0.044* *0.155*
	335.85 350.9 15.05 0.188 0.009 0.006
	*incl.* *335.85* *336.7* *0.85* *0.942* *0.033* *0.024*
HOT026	13.9 34 20.1 0.171 0.006 0.001
	64.15 66.9 2.75 0.186 0.009 0.003
	296.9 338 41.1 0.251 0.012 0.009 *incl.* *315.05* *317.55* *2.5* *0.858* *0.041* *0.04* *incl.* *317.1* *317.55* *0.45* *2.4* *0.111* *0.088*
	353 453 100 0.213 0.011 0.01
	*incl.* *378.35* *380.3* *1.95* *0.701* *0.031* *0.044*
	*incl.* *378.35* *378.9* *0.55* *1.17* *0.052* *0.073*
HOT027	4.7 103.8 99.1 0.218 0.01 0.01
	121.52 131.75 10.23 0.211 0.008 0.003
	280.7 283.1 2.4 0.255* 0.006 0.128
	291 292.9 1.9 0.153* 0.008 0.057
	299.9 301.35 1.45 0.169* 0.005 0.152
	337.48 338 0.52 0.194* 0.013 0.096
HOT028	152.3 278 125.7 0.189 0.01 0.002
	292 295 3 0.151* 0.006 0.002
	319.55 373.8 54.25 0.224 0.011 0.006
	*incl.* *322.55* *328.35* *5.8* *0.568* *0.024* *0.016*
	381.8 417 35.2 0.206 0.01 0.007
	425 440 15 0.211 0.015 0.028

Note: These intervals should not be taken as being representative of true width. The varying drilling angle and lithological plunge makes it difficult to calculate with any degree of confidence .

APPENDIX 3 JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Criteria JORC Code explanation Sampling • Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random techniques chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.

Commentary

Historic drilling and sampling was detailed in the original Mineral Resource Estimation completed by Adam Wheeler in 2022 (refer to company announcement “Nordic delivers Maiden 133.6Mt Mineral Resource” dated 7[th] July 2022).
Starting from 47 holes covering 6,098m, this update includes an additional 27 diamond drilling holes completed by NNL, giving a grand total of 15,745m. All holes were drilled with NQ coring bits which give 32mm diameter core.

Sampling techniques	•	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.	• Historic drilling and sampling was detailed in the original Mineral Resource Estimation completed by Adam Wheeler in 2022_(refer to company announcement “Nordic delivers_ Maiden 133.6Mt Mineral Resource” dated 7th July 2022). • Starting from 47 holes covering 6,098m, this update includes an additional 27 diamond drilling holes completed
	•	Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample	by NNL, giving a grand total of 15,745m. All holes were
		representivity and the appropriate calibration of any	drilled with NQ coring bits which give 32mm diameter core.
		measurement tools or systems used.	• Mineralisation was determined using lithological changes. All
	•	Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are	core has been logged in detail and assayed by NNL.
		Material to the Public Report.	Measurements were also made with a pXRF, Susceptibility
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this	and density measurements taken for each lithology.
		would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling	• Mineralised samples were selected by NNL geologists and
		was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was	taken to Palsatech Oy for cutting and sampling. Sample sizes
		pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other	ranged from 0.1 – 5.0m. Appropriate Standards and Blanks
		cases more explanation may be required, such as where	were inserted at a >2% frequency. Assay was by 4 acid
		there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems.	digest and ICP-OES at ALS Global in Sodankyla.
		Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine	• Collar locations were determined using a Satlab SLC6 RTK-
		nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	Receiver DGPS.
			• Early test work by Metso:Outotec on historic core_(refer to_
			company announcement “Encouraging First Pass test work
			on Hotinvaara nickel mineralization” dated 22nd June 2022)
			suggests that between 83% and 94% if nickel is in sulphide
			and the sole Ni-bearing minerals are pentlandite and
			pyrrhotite.
Drilling	•	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer,	• Diamond drilling was conducted by Kati Oy.
techniques		rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg	• Drilling was conducted using NQ2 (32mm core size)
		core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond	equipment on a chrome tube.
		tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is	• All core is orientated using the Reflex ACT tool.
		_oriented and if so, by what method, etc). _


Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Drill sample	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample	• Recovery was calculated on the amount recovered versus
recovery	recoveries and results assessed.	the amount drilled. Depths and recovery were recorded on
	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure	wooden blocks placed in the core trays by the driller at the
	representative nature of the samples.	end of every run. Lost core was also recorded in this way.
	• Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and	Core recovery was good, even through frequent broken
	grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to	ground.
	preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	• No relationship between recovery and grade was observed.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and	• Core has been lithologically logged, with selected intervals
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support	being geotechnically logged.
	appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and	• Logging is both qualitative and quantitative.
	metallurgical studies.	• All core drilled by NNL is logged.
	• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core
	(or costean, channel, etc) photography.
	• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections
	_logged. _
Sub-	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all	• Half core samples were used for composite sampling.
sampling	core taken.	• Samples were sawn along the Ori line to ensure consistency
techniques	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc	of samples taken.
and sample	and whether sampled wet or dry.	• Duplicates were taken from core as quarter core, as well as
preparation	• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness	coarse and pulp duplicates in the lab. Each duplicate was
	of the sample preparation technique.	used with >5% insertion rate.
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling
	stages to maximise representivity 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. _
Quality of	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and	• Samples were dispatched to ALS Global in Sodankyla
assay data	laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is	• After crushing and pulverizing they were analysed using 4-
and	considered partial or total.	acid digest with ICP-OES finish .
laboratory	• For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF	• Appropriate standards for komatiitic nickel sulphide
tests	instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the	mineralization were used. For this program they were OREAS
	analysis including instrument make and model, reading	85 and OREAS 13b
	times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.
	• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards,
	blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether
	acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision
	_have been established. _


Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
Verification	•	The verification of significant intersections by either	•	No external verification was done.
of sampling		independent or alternative company personnel.	•	No twinned holes were drilled.
and	•	The use of twinned holes.	•	Drill logging data was entered in Excel spreadsheets.
assaying	•	Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data	•	No adjustments have been made to assay data.
		verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
	•	Discussany adjustment to assay data.
Location of	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes	•	Drill hole collar locations were determined by DGPS
data points		(collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and		(SatLab)SLC6 RTK Receiver accurate to +/- 2cm (using
		other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.		correction service Leica Geosystems HxGN SmartNet)
	•	Specification of the grid system used.	•	Elevations were determined using GTK’s Lidar digital terrain
	•	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		model (DEM)
			•	All collar locations are in ETRS879 Zone 35, Northern
				Hemisphere
			•	Downhole surveys are made following completion of drilling
				using a DeviGyro instrument.
Data	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•	Historic drill traverses were completed on a nominal 50m
spacing and	•	Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to		grid, with individual holes space 100m apart within each
distribution		establish the degree of geological and grade continuity		traverse.
		appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve	•	NNL drilling is either infill or extensional to historic drilling.
		estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.	•	It is considered that the spacing of samples used is sufficient
	•	Whether sample compositing has been applied.		for the evaluation of a MRE (JORC, 2012)
			•	No sample compositing has occurred withing mineralised
				domains.
Orientation	•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased	•	NNL dips and azimuths are shown in Appendix 1
of data in		sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this	•	Lithologies at Hotinvaara have an apparent dip of
relation to		is known, considering the deposit type.		approximately 30-40 degrees to the north-west.
geological	•	If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the	•	Drilling orientations have not introduced any sampling bias.
structure		orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to
		have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed
		and reported if material.
Sample	•	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•	Core is couriered to Palsatech for cutting and sampling.
security			•	Standards are supplied in sealed foil packets
Audits or	•	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques	•	Independent consultant resource geologist, Mr Adam
reviews		and data.		Wheeler audited sampling techniques and data as part of the
				initial MRE verification site visit in May-June 2023. Mr
				Wheeler is a professional fellow (FIMMM), Institute of
				Materials, Minerals and Mining.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral	•	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership	•	All results in this announcement pertain to the Hotinvaara
tenement		including agreements or material issues with third parties		EL, Area Code: ML2019:0101. Tenement is 100% owned by
and land		such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties,		Pulju Malminetsintä Oy (PMO), a subsidiary of NNL.
tenure		native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national
status		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 inthe area.
Exploration	•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other	•	Outokumpu Oy did regional exploration in the area which
done by		parties.		was followed by drilling in the 1980s and 1990s. 51 holes
other				completed
parties			•	The Hotinvaara area was later held by Anglo American
				(2003-2007) who completed 6 diamond drill holes and
				regional bottom of till sampling.
Geology	•	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•	The main commodity of interest in Hotinvaara is nickel.
				Minor copper has also been intersected. The main economic
				minerals are pentlandite and chalcopyrite. The bulk of the
				mineralization occurs as fine grained disseminated sulphides
				but there is also semi-massive to massive sulphide veins
				with high nickel grades.
			•	The main mineralized lithologies are komatiites, dunites,
				serpentinites and metaperidotites (ultramafic cumulates).
				Also, some mineralisation is hosted by ultramafic skarn.
			•	The Pulju greenstone belt is located in the western part of
				the Central Lapland greenstone belt. The Pulju Belt covers
				an area of ~10-20km
Drill hole	•	A summary of all information material to the understanding	•	Drillhole information is detailed in Appendix 1 of this release.
Information		of the exploration results including a tabulation of the	•	All drill holes were diamond cored.
		following information for all Material drill holes:	•	No information has been excluded.
		`o` easting and northing of the drill hole collar
		`o` elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea
		level in metres) of the drill hole collar
		`o` dip and azimuth of the hole
		`o` down hole lengthand interception depth


Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		`o` 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.
Data	•	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging	•	Weighted average grades were determined by the following
aggregation		techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations		rules:
methods		(eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually		`o` Primary cut-off: 0.15% Ni-total; max. 6m internal
		Material and should be stated.		dilution.
	•	Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high		`o` Secondary cut-off: 0.5% Ni-total; max. 1m internal
		grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the		dilution.
		procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and		`o` Ternary cut-off: 1% Ni-total
		some typical examples of such aggregations should be	•	No metal equivalent grades are reported.
		shown in detail.
	•	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent
		values should be clearly stated.
Relationship	•	These relationships are particularly important in the	•	Holes are predominantly inclined to get as near to
between		reporting of Exploration Results.		perpendicular intersections as possible unless orientations of
mineralisati	•	If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill		specific targets or topography required otherwise.
on widths		hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.	•	During MRE modelling, the mineralised drill hole
and	•	If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are		intersections were modelled in Datamine to interpret the
intercept		reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg		spatial nature and distribution of the mineralisation.
lengths		‘down hole length, true width not known’).	•	In the historical drilling by Outokumpu, true thickness of
				mineralisation averages ~86% that of the downhole
				thickness.
			•	The apparent true thickness of mineralisation intersected by
				NNL is outlined in the body of this release. The true
				thickness of mineralisation cannot be established with a high
				degree of certainty at this point due to the preliminary
				nature of exploration
Diagrams	•	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations	•	Relevant maps and sections are included in this release.
		of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery
		being reported These should include, but not be limited to a
		plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate
		sectional views.
Balanced	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is	•	All available relevant information is reported.
reporting		not practicable, representative reporting of both low and
		high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid


Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		_misleading reporting of Exploration Results. _
Other	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be	•	Historical gravity data measured by Outokumpu was
substantive		reported including (but not limited to): geological		purchased from GTK in 2020.
exploration		observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical	•	Ground magnetics was done by Magnus Minerals in 2019
data		survey results; bulk samples – size and method of		with Gem’s GSM-19 (Overhauser) magnetometer and data
		treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,		was processed by GRM-services Oy.
		groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential	•	BHEM was completed by GRM-services Oy in 2021 with
		deleterious or contaminating substances.		EMIT’s DigiAtlantis survey equipment, and data was
				modelled by NNL.
			•	FLEM was completed by Geovisor in December 2021 and
				January 2022 with EMIT’s SMART fluxgate survey equipment
				and data was modelled by NNL.Modelling indicates deep
				seated conductors at about 400m, 800m and 1500m depths.
				The conductor at 400m correlates with the deeper plate
				identified from BHEM.
			•	A petrology, geochemical and mineral liberation study was
				undertaken by Metso:Outotec. Full details of this study are
				provided in NNL ASX release_“Encouraging First Pass Test_
				Work on Hotinvaara Nickel Mineralisation”, 22 June, 2022.
			•	Ground magnetics was completed by Nordic Nickel Limited in
				2023 with GEM’s GSM-19 (Overhauser) magnetometer and
				data was processed by Nordic Nickel Limited.
			•	BHEM was completed by Astrock and Magnus Minerals in
				2023 with EMIT’s DigiAtlantis survey equipment and data
				was modelled by NNL.
			•	UAV magnetic survey completed by Radai Oy over 269km2;
				survey consisted of 846 lines at 40m lines spacing for a total
				of 7,430 line kilometres. Flight speed 13-30m/s; fluxgate
				sensor -3 orthogonal components; noise level ± 0.5µT,
				sampling frequency 1Hz; data processing utilized equivalent
				layer modelling (ELM).
Further	•	The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for	•	Further drilling is planned to test remaining geophysical
work		lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-		anomalies and gain greater structural understanding with
		out drilling).		the aim of discovering a more massive sulphide component
	•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible		to the currently observed disseminated mineralisation.
		extensions, including the main geological interpretations and	•	Mineralisation appears to be open along strike and at depth,
		future drilling areas, provided this information is not		and in the adjacent Hotinssajo magnetic asnomaly.
		commercially sensitive.

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	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	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. • •	The Competent Person undertook the following validation procedures: `o` verification of resampling assay QC data; `o` Checks during import, combination and desurveying of data. Check sections and plans also produced. Historic data management and data validation procedures are unknown.
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. • •	Adam Wheeler completed a site visit during 29th to 31st May, 2023, during the 2023 drilling campaign. MMO, who a the major shareholder of NNL, completed multiple site visits to the project, the most recent of which was in July 2021 to survey the historic drill hole collars.
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. • 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. • • • • • •	The general overall interpretation of the mineralisation is very clear as the mineralised cumulates are defined through aeromagnetics and mapping. The historic diamond drilling campaign has shown clear evidence of disseminated mineralisation. In the estimation of indicated resources, a maximum extrapolation distance of 40m has been applied. In the estimation of inferred resources, a maximum extrapolation distance of 100m has been applied. Effects of alternative geologic models were not tested. The impact of geology on mineralisation has been applied through the use of dynamic anisotropy controlling search envelopes during grade estimation, such that high and low grades are projected sub-parallel to the edges of the defined mineralised structures. The geological continuity of the mineralised zones has been reinforced by successive drilling campaigns.
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. •	Strike Length m	Overall Width m	Minimum Base Elevation *mRL*	Maximum Outcrop Elevation *mRL*	Maximum Depth m	True Thickness of Mineralised Zones m	Dip Range
	1,700	1,900	-700	315	900	20-300	25-55O

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Estimation	•	The nature and appropriateness of the estimation	•	As the bulk of the near-surface disseminated material has
and modelling		technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including		not been evaluated at a large scale before, checks with
techniques		treatment of extreme grade values, domaining,		previous estimates are not possible.
		interpolation parameters and maximum distance of	•	It is considered that nickel is the principal product, with
		extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted		copper and cobalt as secondary products. There are no other
		estimation method was chosen include a description of		by-products.
		computer software and parameters used.	•	No deleterious elements have been considered and have
	•	The availability of check estimates, previous estimates		therefore not been estimated.
		and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral	•	The 3D block models for the near-surface modelling were
		Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.		based on a parent block size of 20m x 20m x 10m, with sub-
	•	The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.		blocks generated down to a resolution of 10m x10m to
	•	Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade		reflect the topography. There was no lower limit on sub-
		variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid		block height.
		mine drainage characterisation).	•	In the modelling of mineralised zone, mineralised sub-blocks
	•	In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in		were generated down to a minimum of 5m x 5m 1m.
		relation to the average sample spacing and the search	•	There is some correlation between Ni and Co grades, but no
		employed.		correlation between Ni and Cu or between Co and Cu grades.
	•	Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining	•	The interpretation of mineralised zones subsequently
		units.		controlled selected samples and zone composites, and then
	•	Any assumptions about correlation between variables.		the resource block models.
	•	Description of how the geological interpretation was used	•	Grade capping was applied, as described.
		to control the resource estimates.	•	Model validation steps are described in this release..
	•	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 drill hole data, and use of
		reconciliation data ifavailable.
Moisture	•	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with	•	Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
		natural moisture, and the method of determination of the
		moisture content.
Cut-off	•	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality	•	The main reference cut-offs used for resource estimation
parameters		parameters applied.		was: 0.15% Ni total, as appropriate for potential open pit
				mining.
Mining factors	•	Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods,	•	Conventional open pit mining was considered for potential
or		minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable,		mining of near-surface resources, as briefly discussed in this
assumptions		external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of		release.
		the process of determining reasonable prospects for
		eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining


Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining
		methods and parameters when estimating Mineral
		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	•	The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding	•	No detailed metallurgical studies have been undertaken.
factors or		metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of	•	Nickel in sulphide (partial leach) assays were undertaken on
assumptions		the process of determining reasonable prospects for		selective samples submitted during 2021. These results
		eventual economic extraction to consider potential		suggest an average Nickel in Sulphide contents of
		metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding		approximately 75%.
		metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made	•	Two bulk samples provided to Metso:Outotec for petrology
		when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be		and mineral liberation studies returned results of:
		rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported	e.	Lower disseminated sample: Ni grade 0.238%, with 83% in
		with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical		Sulphides
		assumptions made.	f.	Higher grade disseminate sample: Ni grade 0.714%, with
				94% in Sulphides
			g.	A summary of this study is provided in the previous MRE, 7th
				July 2022. Full details of this study are provided in	NNL ASX
				release “Encouraging First Pass Test Work on Hotinvaara
				Nickel Mineralisation“, 22 June, 2022.
Environmental	•	Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process	•	If the project is further developed, environmental impact
factors or		residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of		monitoring will be required.
assumptions		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.
Bulk density	•	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for	•	Density measurements have been made from core samples,
		the assumptions. If determined, the method used,		using water immersion.
		whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements,	•	No voids present.
		the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.	•	Density values estimated by ordinary kriging (OK).	Zone
	•	The bulk density for bulk material must have been		averages set where insufficient samples available.
					45


Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		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.
Classification	•	The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources	•	The basis for resource classification criteria have been
		into varying confidence categories.		described in this release.
	•	Whether appropriate account has been taken of all	•	The resource classification criteria have taken into account
		relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade		all relevant factors.
		estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in	•	The resource estimation results reflect the Competent
		continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity		Person’s view of the deposit.
		and distribution of the data).
	•	Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent
		Person’s viewof thedeposit.
Audits or	•	The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource	•	No audit or review of the Mineral Resource estimates has
reviews		estimates.		been completed by an independent external individual or
				company. The Competent Person has conducted an internal
				review of all available data.
			•	MMO, who a the major shareholder of NNL, completed
				multiple site visits to the project the most recent of which
				was in July 2021 to survey the historic drill hole collars.
Discussion of	•	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy	•	The relative accuracy of the Mineral Resource estimate is
relative		and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate		reflected in the reporting of the Mineral Resources as per the
accuracy/		using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by		guidelines of the 2012 JORC code.
confidence		the Competent Person. For example, the application of	•	The resource statement relates to global estimates of tonnes
		statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the		and grade.
		relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence	•	No historical mining has taken place.
		limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate,
		a qualitative discussion of the factors that 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.
	•	These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of
		the estimate should be compared with production data,
		where available.
				46

AI assistant

NORDIC RESOURCES LTD Capital/Financing Update 2024

65432_rns_2024-03-10_61995377-d5a6-4c6a-9d58-c88e22f67787.pdf

SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN HOTINVAARA RESOURCE ESTABLISHES PULJU AS GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT NICKEL SULPHIDE DISTRICT

HIGHLIGHTS

Management Comment

Mineral Resource Estimate

Location

Geological setting and mineralisation

Deposit Type

Drilling

Sample Preparation

Estimation Methodology

Interpretation

Nickel in Sulphide

Grade Estimation

Mineral Resource Classification

Authorised for release by: Todd Ross – Managing Director

Nordic Nickel

Todd Ross – Managing Director

Media: Read Corporate Nicholas Read

Competent Person Statement

Forward Looking Statement

APPENDIX 1

Nordic Nickel Diamond Collar Location Table

APPENDIX 2

Nordic Nickel Significant Intercepts

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Commentary

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration

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

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

AI assistant

NORDIC RESOURCES LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2024

65432_rns_2024-03-10_61995377-d5a6-4c6a-9d58-c88e22f67787.pdf

SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN HOTINVAARA RESOURCE ESTABLISHES PULJU AS GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT NICKEL SULPHIDE DISTRICT

HIGHLIGHTS

Management Comment

Mineral Resource Estimate

Location

Geological setting and mineralisation

Deposit Type

Drilling

Sample Preparation

Estimation Methodology

Interpretation

Nickel in Sulphide

Grade Estimation

Mineral Resource Classification

Authorised for release by: Todd Ross – Managing Director

Nordic Nickel

Todd Ross – Managing Director

Media: Read Corporate Nicholas Read

Competent Person Statement

Forward Looking Statement

APPENDIX 1

Nordic Nickel Diamond Collar Location Table

APPENDIX 2

Nordic Nickel Significant Intercepts

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Commentary

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration

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

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

More from NORDIC RESOURCES LTD

NORDIC RESOURCES LTD Capital/Financing Update 2024