NICKEL FRAC SAND World-Class, Highest-Quality Shovel-Ready, Frac - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

nickel frac sand
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

NICKEL FRAC SAND World-Class, Highest-Quality Shovel-Ready, Frac - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TSX: Ni One Company, Two Compelling Investment Opportunities NICKEL FRAC SAND World-Class, Highest-Quality Shovel-Ready, Frac Sand Product, Sulphide Nickel Project Large Resource, Cash Flow TSX: Ni March 2015 Victory Nickel Company


slide-1
SLIDE 1

TSX:Ni March 2015

NICKEL

World-Class, Shovel-Ready, Sulphide Nickel Project

FRAC SAND

Highest-Quality Frac Sand Product, Large Resource, Cash Flow

TSX:Ni One Company, Two Compelling Investment Opportunities

slide-2
SLIDE 2

TSX:Ni

2

Victory Nickel

Company Profile

Ni:TSX – Share Capital Structure

Shares Outstanding (10:1 consolidation 17/09/14) ~57.6 million Fully Diluted Shares* ~79.7 million Market Capitalization (04/02/15) $10.7 million Debt (incl. $4 M secured line of credit; $6 M unsecured

convertible notes); $1 .5 M receivables line)

$11.5 million

Major Shareholders

  • A&M International

9.5%

  • Jien International

9.2%

  • Sea Shell Limited

8.4%

  • Nuinsco Resources Ltd.

5.8%

  • Management & Directors 2.0%

*~2.8 M options ($0.70 average exercise price); warrants ~11.3 M ($0.35 exercise price); ~2 M ($1.00 exercise price); ~6.5 M from convertible note ($1.00 conversion price).

Victory Silica Ltd.

(100%)

Victory Nickel Inc.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

TSX:Ni

  • Supplying Canada with Highest

Quality Frac Sand

  • Multi-Phased Business Plan
  • Phase 1 complete
  • Phase 2 approved by board
  • Ownership of Wisconsin and significant

Manitoba frac sand resources

  • Permitting of Wisconsin property
  • Phase 3 Winnipeg site selection progressing
  • Extreme valuation discount
  • Strong stock performance for US peers
  • More advanced than Canadian peers

3

One Company

Two Compelling Investment Opportunities

  • Well Positioned for Resurgence in

Nickel Market

  • Four Nickel Projects in Canada:
  • Over 1 billion lbs nickel in M&I resource
  • Flagship Minago Project in Manitoba:
  • Feasibility study complete, permitted for

development

  • Frac Sand Co-Product at Minago

NICKEL FRAC SAND

slide-4
SLIDE 4

TSX:Ni

4 4

Company History

From Nickel to Frac Sand

2007: Victory Nickel created 2009: Feasibility study for Minago: significant frac sand by-product value identified (12.6 million tonne NI-43-101 frac sand resource) 2011-12: Minago permitted for production, meaningful decline in nickel prices 2012: Victory Silica created to help unlock value of frac sand at Minago 2013: A multi-phased frac sand business created, independent of, yet complimentary to Minago Q1 2014: Proof of concept: first frac sand sales Q3 2014: Plant commissioning complete, sales on-going,

  • perating cash flow

Q4 2014: Optioned Wisconsin frac sand property Q1 2015: NI-43-101 indicated frac sand resource of 10.9 million tons in Wisconsin

Frac Sand Nickel

slide-5
SLIDE 5

TSX:Ni

Company Profile

Nickel Projects

Four Advanced Sulphide Nickel Projects

Approximately 1 billion pounds of nickel in Measured and Indicated resources and 300 million pounds of Inferred resources, NI 43-101

Lynn Lake optioned to Corazon Mining

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

TSX:Ni

Minago Project

The Property

  • Well-located
  • Sulphide nickel deposit
  • Exceptional metallurgy
  • Open pit and underground mining

potential

  • Bankable feasibility study on open

pit only

  • Exceptional exploration upside

Minago Property Minago Property

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

TSX:Ni

Minago Project

Reserves and Production Upside

  • Nose Deposit open pit:

8.6-year mine life

  • Nose Deposit U/G (inferred

resource)

  • North Limb: Exploration target
  • Mineralization open to west,

north and at depth

  • Combined resources projected

mine life of <20 years

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

TSX:Ni

Minago Project

Nickel Concentrate Assay

8 Assay Component Unit Value Ni % 22.3 Cu % 1.4 Co % 0.46 Pt g/t 2.47 Pd g/t 6.31 Au g/t 0.63 Ag g/t 4.3 Rh g/t 0.59 S % 24.4 Fe % 17.0 MgO % 10.4 SiO2 % 12.7 Al % 0.11 As g/t 61.0 Ba g/t 61.0 Be g/t 0.10 Bi g/t <20 Ca % 2.0 Cd g/t <4 Cr g/t 410 Assay Component Unit Value Hg g/t <0.3 K g/t 410 Li g/t <5 Mn g/t 270 Mo g/t 22 Na g/t 240 P g/t 131 Pb % 0.097 Sb g/t <30 Se g/t <40 Sn g/t <20 Sr g/t 40 Ti g/t 200 Tl g/t <30 U g/t <60 V g/t <20 Y g/t <10 Zn % 0.18 Cl % 0.044 F % 0.066

slide-9
SLIDE 9

TSX:Ni

Minago Project

Feasibility Study Optimization

9

Minago Sulphide Nickel Project: Economic Summary Comparison

Base Case

  • Dec. 14, 20091

($million except % & yrs)

Base Case July 19, 20111,2

($million except % & yrs)

At Today’s Metal Prices

  • Feb. 26, 2015

Undiscounted cash flow 917.7 1,418.4 634.6 NPV @ 8% 293.8 513.0 118.7 NPV @ 6% 402.6 669.3 205.1 IRR 17.7% 22.4% 11.9% Pre-Production Capital 593.0 585.1 558.4

  • 1. Three-year trailing average US$ metal prices and exchange rate as of market close December 10, 2009: Ni:

$11.19/lb; Cu: $2.91/lb; Pd: $322.4/oz; Pt: $1,353.98/oz; Au: $836.25/oz; Co: $27.73/lb; Ag: $14.25/oz; $Can/$US exchange rate: 1.097

  • 2. Updated resource
slide-10
SLIDE 10

TSX:Ni

Minago Project

Cost Summary

10

C1 Cash Cost Per lb Ni Feasibility Study After Optimization Net of Credits * US $1.94 (C$2.12) US $2.20 (C$2.41) Metal By-Product Credits US $0.72 (C$0.79) US $0.77 (C$0.85) Frac Sand By-Product Value US $3.68 (C$4.04) US $2.90 (C$3.18) Cash Cost per lb Nickel Before Credits US $6.34 (C$6.95) US $5.87 (C$6.44)

*Net C1 costs increase when metal production increases without corresponding frac sand increase (same size pit)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

NICKEL The Free “Call Option”

Victory Nickel Inc.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

TSX:Ni

  • Large domestic resource at Minago
  • Frac sand boom continuing
  • Very strong market fundamentals for frac sand
  • Experienced frac sand industry management
  • Low cost of entry/early cash flow
  • Strong peer group valuation
  • First ever public information from recent IPOs
  • New frac sand producer with extreme value

12

Why Victory Silica?

Building a Business Independent of Minago

On the way to becoming the largest supplier of the highest quality imported and domestic frac sand for delivery in Canada

slide-13
SLIDE 13

TSX:Ni

Minago Project

Frac Sand Potential

Existing resource within current pit shell: 15 Mt Existing & proposed quarry leases: 75 Mt potential* Proposed quarry exploration permits: 475 Mt potential* Entire land package (mineral leases + mining claims): 2 Bt potential*

13

*Company estimates, non-NI 43-101

slide-14
SLIDE 14

TSX:Ni

Minago Project

Co-Product: Frac Sand

Feasibility Study Highlights

  • 11.2 million tonnes marketable frac

sand in pit footprint alone

  • Mined over first three years
  • Sales over 10 years
  • Mine gate margin per tonne ~$63
  • Annual net revenue ~$70 M
  • Processing cost/tonne = $6.50
  • Co-product value per pound of nickel

= $4.04 (US$3.68); optimized: $3.18 (US$2.90)

14

Frac Sand Nickel

slide-15
SLIDE 15

TSX:Ni

15 15

Shale Gas / Tight Oil Revolution

Frac Sand Boom

  • Unconventional ‘shale gas’ and ‘tight oil’ previously uneconomic to recover at a large

scale

  • Efficiency gains in horizontal drilling and the introduction of ‘fracking’ helped unlock

vast natural gas and oil resources

  • The rapid implementation of technology changed the North American energy

landscape, with a “sand boom” being a resulting factor

  • The Freedonia Group reports that frac sand consumption in North America increased

by 323% between 2007 and 2012

  • Impact of recent oil price decrease yet to be determined

Frac sand is an effective way to participate in North America’s ‘unconventional’ oil and gas production growth

slide-16
SLIDE 16

TSX:Ni

What is ‘Fracking’? Frac Sand?

Not all sand makes frac sand!

16

  • Hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ is a technique used in the development of
  • il & gas formations to

to inc increase se flo flow w and exte tend well ll li life. Proppant (such as frac sand) holds or ‘props’ the formation open, increases porosity,

and increases oil/gas flow to the wellhead

  • Frac sand must meet unique API specifications such as miner

mineralog alogy, roundness and strength for use in the oil & gas industry as a proppant

Victory Silica’s Frac Sand

30/50 20/40

slide-17
SLIDE 17

TSX:Ni

17

Proppant / Frac Sand Market

Dynamic Demand

Modified from Source: Raymond James “North American Sand Rush” August 19, 2014

Increasing Frac Intensity North American Proppant Demand Model

2017 Freedonia Report Estimate, August 2013

Increasing Sand Intensity

slide-18
SLIDE 18

TSX:Ni

18

Proppant / Frac Sand Market

Positive Demand Trends

Drilling Rig Count % Horizontal Rigs Wells Per Rig Lateral Length Per Well Frac Stages Per Lateral Proppant Per Stage

Not to scale, for illustrative purposes only

Recent decline in

  • verall drilling

activity largely due to pull back in

  • il price

North American oil and gas production increasingly from unconventional resource plays Pad drilling and fit-for-purpose rigs driving efficiency gains Longer wells typically equate to more proppant use Trend towards tighter spacing between fracks equates to more proppant use Trend towards more proppant per frack driven by increasing evidence of resulting increased flow rates and extended well lives

Commodity Price Dependant Positive Structural Demand Trends for Proppant

slide-19
SLIDE 19

TSX:Ni

19

Frac sand prices have declined as knee jerk reaction with WTI

  • il price, though at a lesser rate and market fundamentals

exist to help mitigate continued downward pressure

Frac Sand Price Index

Frac Sand Measured as a Component of PPI

slide-20
SLIDE 20

TSX:Ni

Experienced Management

Victory Silica Limited

20

René R. Galipeau /Chairman

35+ years mining experience with Hudson Bay, Breakwater Resources, Lac Minerals, Rio Algom. Current Vice-Chair & CEO of Victory Nickel.

Ken Murdock /CEO & Director

Engineer with over 25 years experience in the aggregate/construction & oilfield materials/frac sand industries. In addition to operating as an independent consultant in Canada and Wisconsin, frac sand industry experience includes Canfrac Sands (operations), United Industrial Services (design, permitting, construction, operation and marketing of a silica sand project in Peace River) and Lafarge Cement.

David Frey /Vice-President, Logistics

Extensive experience in the logistic industry in Alberta. Held numerous operations, sales and management roles with several companies including Narum Carriers, Tri-Line Carriers and Kleysen Transport.

Troy Bergen /Plant Manager, Seven Persons Frac Sand Facility

Operated the Seven Persons frac sand facility between 2008 and 2010 with previous owner 3R Sand Ltd. Prior to that, he was Operations Manager with Clean Earth Environmental Ltd.

Jeff Bradley /Marketing & Logistics Representative

10 years of operational and sales experience in Alberta’s oil &gas sector, including Cathedral Energy Services, Aaron Drilling, Colter Production Services and Opsco Energy Industries.

Alison Sutcliffe /Chief Financial Officer, Sean Stokes /Corporate Secretary

(See Victory Nickel Appendix)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

TSX:Ni

21

Victory Silica Business Plan

Phased Approach – Clear Path for Growth

Phase 1: Market Entry

  • Cost of $6 million
  • Seven Persons (dry) Plant:

processing infrastructure in Alberta (500 ktpa)

  • Ship contracted (wet) sand

from Wisconsin

  • Strategic storage capacity

Phase 3: Growth

  • Winnipeg (dry) plant:

processing infrastructure in Manitoba (1,040 ktpa)

  • Site selection with favourable

logistics (CN, CP,BNSF)

  • Initially supplied from

Wisconsin

Minago Sand

  • Longer-term upside
  • Currently looking at smaller

pit configuration to target frac sand only

Phase 2: Vertical Integration

  • Wisconsin mine JV including wash plant
  • wnership/frac sand property option
  • Security of sand supply/quality control
  • Margin enhancement
slide-22
SLIDE 22

TSX:Ni

($US) Emerge Energy Services (NYSE: EMES) Hi-Crush Partners (NYSE: HCLP) US Silica Holdings (NYSE: SLCA) Victory Silica (Forecast) Phase 1,2 Phase 3 Phase 1,2,3 Cash Raised on IPO Capex Requirements $140 M $225 M $200 M $ 11 M $ 30 M $ 40 M 2013 Frac Sand Tons Sold 2,651,000 1,849,075 2,960,800 500,000 1,040,000 1,540,000

  • Adj. EBITDA
  • Adj. EBITDA Frac Sand Only

$85 M $69 M $69 M $69 M $161 M $116 M $14.5 M2,4 $26 M $40.5 M2,4 Forecast EBITDA / Ton Sold Actual EBITDA / Ton Sold $26.21 $29.44 $39.03 $29.002 $34.221 $25.00 $34.221 $26.302 $34.221 Market Cap (Feb., 2015) Enterprise Value (EV) $1,280 M $1,500 M $1,350 M $1,600 M $1,650 M $1,790 M $8.1 M $19.3 M4

  • 2015E EBITDA

$200 M3 $217 M3 $324 M3 $14.5 M2,4

  • EV/2015E EBITDA

7.5x 7.4x 5.5x 1.3x2,4 Implied Enterprise Value at 6.8x1 EV/2015E EBITDA @ EBITDA/ton estimated by Victory Silica (Does not include Phase 3 or margin enhancement – for illustration purposes only) $ 99 M

1 - average of Emerge, Hi-Crush, and US Silica 2- includes Phase 2 margin improvement, assumes full sales capacity 3- consensus estimates, source: Cowen & Company January 11th 2015 4 - before Nuinsco debt repayment

22

Victory Silica

Relative and Implied Valuation

slide-23
SLIDE 23

TSX:Ni

23

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., North Dakota

North American Shale Basins

Current Market Focus

Formations Sold Into

  • Alberta Bakken
  • Cardium
  • Deep Basin
  • Duvernay
  • Lower Shaunavon
  • Montney
  • Viking
slide-24
SLIDE 24

TSX:Ni

24

  • Processing purchased import wet sand

(concentrate) from Wisconsin

  • Seven Persons Plant
  • Fully-functioning sand plant on 22.4 acres
  • 22,000 tons product storage capacity
  • $6.0 M capex to take dry plant capacity to

500,000 tpa (complete)

  • Commissioning complete
  • Production increasing each quarter
  • Reported Q3 EBITDA $597,000 from frac

sand operations

  • Full production expected during 2015

Phase 1: Market Entry

Seven Persons Plant – Medicine Hat, Alberta

Phase 1 Annual Sales Capacity 500,000 tons Estimated Margin $25/ton

Selected Victory Silica Customers

slide-25
SLIDE 25

TSX:Ni

25

Phase 1:

Milestones

Wisconsin sand purchase agreement

Sand washing agreement

Wisconsin transload agreement

Rail agreement, rail siding agreement

Railcar leasing agreement

Seven Persons trucking agreement

Equipment leasing agreements

Plant construction completed

First sand deliveries from Wisconsin

First frac sand product sale

Plant commissioning completed

Spot sales on-going

Acquisition of frac sand resource in Wisconsin

Secured second transload in Minnesota

slide-26
SLIDE 26

TSX:Ni

26

Phase 1:

Production Reconciliation

22,519 39,121 47,515 20,000 40,000 60,000 To June 30, 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 47,515 23,368 12,966 9,677 9,464 6,848 4,546 114,384 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

ACTUAL PRODUCTION RAIL SERVICE FAILURE WEATHER RELATED DRYER AVAILABILITY PLANT AVAILABILITY TRAINING OTHER POTENTIAL PRODUCTION

TONS

Q4 2014

slide-27
SLIDE 27

TSX:Ni

Phase 2: Vertical Integration

Wisconsin Property / Wash Plant

27

  • Secure sand supply, enhance margins
  • Entered into option agreement to acquire Bear

Coulee frac sand property in Wisconsin

  • Recently announced NI 43-101 Indicated Resource
  • f 10.9 million tons of Northern White sand on

Bear Coulee property

  • Construct a 1,000,000 tpy ‘moveable’ frac sand

wash plant in Wisconsin / Minnesota Phase 2 Capex ~US$5.0 million Annual Sales Capacity 500,000 tons Estimated Margin $>25/ton

Source: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

slide-28
SLIDE 28

TSX:Ni

Phase 3: Growth

Winnipeg Processing Site

28

  • Build processing facility in Winnipeg
  • Identifying suitable site serviced by

multiple railroads

  • Construct new dry plant – 18 mos.

from start

  • Supply from Wisconsin and area

(Minago longer-term supply option)

  • Target Western Canada (CN) and US

Bakken (CP, BNSF) markets Phase 3 Capex ~US$30 million Working Capital ~US$15 million Annual Sales Capacity 1,040,000 tons Estimated Margin $>25/ton

Winnipeg Wisconsin

slide-29
SLIDE 29

TSX:Ni

Victory Silica

Peer Group Performance

29

  • Preferred Sands/Winn Bay

$200 M acquisition Jan. 2012 (private)

  • US Silica Holdings

IPO: Raised $200 M Feb. 2012 ($1.7 B market cap)

  • Hi-Crush Partners

IPO: Raised $225 M Aug. 2012 ($1.4 B market cap)

  • Emerge Energy Services

IPO: Raised $140 M May 2013 ($1.3 B market cap)

  • FMSA Holdings (Fairmount Minerals)

IPO: Raised $400 M Oct. 2014 ($1.0 B market cap)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

TSX:Ni

30

Victory Silica

Select Canadian Frac Sand Companies

Modified from Source: Raymond James “North American Sand Rush” August 19, 2014

Phase 1,2 Phase 3

MB/WI 16/30 -100 16/30 -100

slide-31
SLIDE 31

TSX:Ni

31

Minago Project

Investment Sumarry

  • One of Canada’s largest undeveloped sulphide nickel resources
  • Positive feasibility study completed; permitted for production
  • Frac sand a significant value driver: US$2.90/lb Ni in co-product value

based on feasibility study

  • Superb location: Manitoba; road, rail, power access
  • 11.2 million tonne frac sand resource, 2 billion tonne potential
  • Potential for smaller, less capital intensive pit configuration to target frac sand only
  • Valuable “CALL OPTION ” on nickel
slide-32
SLIDE 32

TSX:Ni

32

  • Cash flow and robust cash flow growth: Initial sales made March 2014,

plant commissioning complete, clear path forward

  • Meaningful discount to peer group: U.S. peers U.S. Silica, Hi-Crush,

Emerge Energy Services, FMSA Holdings

  • Large domestic frac sand resource: Minago a longer-term strategic asset;

potential for smaller, less capital intensive pit configuration to target frac sand only

  • Resource and large property position in Wisconsin: provides security
  • f supply
  • A sustained resurgence in nickel prices could have a meaningful

impact on Victory Nickel’s valuation: currently investors have a ‘free call

  • ption’ on Minago’s advanced nickel sulphide project

32

Victory Silica

Investment Summary

slide-33
SLIDE 33

TSX:Ni

33

René R. Galipeau /CEO & Director – Victory Nickel Inc.

Accountant with 30+ years mining experience with Hudson Bay, Breakwater Resources, Lac Minerals, Rio Algom

Steve Harapiak /President & COO – Victory Nickel Inc.

Engineer with 30+ years experience, including Hudson Bay, Noranda, Denison and CEO of Potash Corp. (Crown Corp.)

Alison Sutcliffe /VP Finance & CFO – Victory Nickel Inc.

CA with 20+ years experience, most recently with Dundee Corp.

Paul L. Jones /VP Exploration – Victory Nickel Inc.

Geologist and QP with 25+ years experience with more than 20 juniors

Sean Stokes /VP Corporate Affairs & Corporate Secretary – Victory Nickel Inc.

MBA with 20+ years finance, business development, communications experience, incl. Tiberon Minerals, Liberty Minerals, Scandinavian Minerals, Nuinsco Resources

David Mchaina /VP Environment & Sustainable Development – Victory Nickel Inc.

Ph.D. with 20+ years experience, including Boliden, Westmin, Goldcorp

Victory Nickel

Management Team

slide-34
SLIDE 34

TSX:Ni

Victory Nickel

Qualified Independent Board

Cynthia Thomas /Chair

MBA, 20+ years international mining and project finance, former Director Mining Investment Banking – ScotiaMcLeod

René R. Galipeau /CEO & Director Peter R. Jones

Engineer, former CEO of Hudbay Minerals, 40+ years mining experience with Hudbay, Cominco, Cape Breton Development, Granduc Operating Co. and Adanac Molybdenum

Michael Anderson

Lawyer, nine years as General Counsel and Secretary with Denison Mines, previously a partner with Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, in- house counsel with John Labatt, General Counsel for Swift Canadian

Roland Horst

35 years mining experience as a CEO, banker, investment banker and geologist 34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

TSX:Ni

Disclaimer

Some of the statements contained in the following material may be "forward-looking statements." All statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that Victory Nickel believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "seek," "anticipate," "believe," "plan," "estimate," "expect," and "intend" and statements that an event or result "may," "will," "can," "should," "could," or "might" occur or be achieved and other similar expressions. These forward-looking statements reflect the current expectations or beliefs of Victory Nickel based on information currently available to Victory Nickel. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of Victory Nickel to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to,

  • r effects on Victory Nickel. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations include, among other

things, failure to successfully complete intended financings, capital and other costs varying significantly from estimates, production rates varying from estimates, changes in world copper and/or gold markets, changes in equity markets, uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future, equipment failure, unexpected geological conditions, imprecision in resource estimates, success of future development initiatives, competition, operating performance of facilities, environmental and safety risks, delays in obtaining or failure to obtain necessary permits and approvals from government authorities, and other development and operating risks. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, Victory Nickel disclaims any intent or

  • bligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. Although

Victory Nickel believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. Victory Nickel resources are as follows: Minago: Measured: 11.1 million tonnes grading 0.56% Ni, Indicated: 43.1 million tonnes grading 0.51% Ni, Inferred: 14.6 million tonnes grading 0.53% Ni; Lynn Lake: Measured: 1.0 million tonnes grading 0.76% Ni, Indicated: 21.9 million tonnes grading 0.56% Ni, Inferred: 8.1 million tonnes grading 0.51% Ni; Mel: Indicated: 4.3 million tonnes grading 0.88% Ni, Inferred: 1.0 million tonnes grading 0.84% Ni; Lac Rocher: 0.29 million tonnes grading 1.23% Ni, Indicated: 0.51 million tonnes grading 1.05% Ni, inferred: 0.44 million tonnes grading 0.65% Ni. The mineral resources were estimated using the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council December 11, 2005.

35