Yep, a 200% increase in contained Ni metal at the same grade is...

Yep, a 200% increase in contained Ni metal at the same grade is a pretty good outcome from that drilling campaign. Granted the bulk of the gain is from the inferred, which is to be expected…but a 100% uplift in the indicated is still good.

Its by no means a valid direct comparison…but simply as a quick look at the overall tonnage and nickel grade the pre-feasibility resource statement that First Quantum first put out for Kevitsa in 2008;
With a 0.2% Ni cut-off
Measured + Indicated - 141 Mt @ 0.30% Ni, 0.42% Cu, 0.01% Co, 0.12 g/t Au, 0.18 g/t Pd, 0.28 g/t Pt;
Inferred - 291 Mt @ 0.29% Ni, 0.46% Cu, 0.01% Co, 0.09 g/t Au, 0.09 g/t Pd, 0.12 g/t Pt;
With a 0.1% Ni cut-off
Measured + Indicated - 287 Mt @ 0.22% Ni, 0.29% Cu, 0.01% Co, 0.09 g/t Au, 0.13 g/t Pd, 0.20 g/t Pt;
Inferred Resource - 544 Mt @ 0.22% Ni, 0.32% Cu, 0.01% Co, 0.07 g/t Au, 0.08 g/t Pd, 0.09 g/t Pt;

Obviously Kevitsa is different, with the Cu, Au and PGE's...but still, for NNL to be up in that 400+ Mt range at ~0.2% Ni at 0.15% cutoff is encouraging, even if its largely propped up by the inferred at this stage.
A couple of the mineralized shape extrapolations look a bit funky but i guess that the hard geometry rules that have been applied. within those shapes though, the extrapolation of the inferred sometimes looks to exceed the stated limits...but maybe there is drilling just off section that is not shown?




Ideally it would be nice to get a series of holes in under HOV011 asap, just to see if that upper zone of better grade (>0.2%) is continuous.
As you say the met work is eagerly awaited...they used a static 72% Ni in Sulphides proportion for the Indicated resource, but the averages for each mineralized zone are varied, 61% through 87%. So hopefully the metwork is detailed enough to get a sense of the Ni recoveries in each of those mineralized zones.