Ann: Wallbrook Exploration Target & Mineral Resource Estimate, page-97

@robbo24 I apologise for using maths again.

The MRE announcement states:

"The MRE has focused on mine constrained open pit potential only and includes a significant component of indicated material comprising 46% of overall mineral resource."

"The MRE, with reasonable prospect of eventual economic extraction factors applied," This is what NXM considers economic at this point in time given the drilling that they have done.

The announcement provides no "mine constrained open pit" visual indications of what this actually looks like. I've tried creating my own, but when including pitwall design angles it raises more questions than answers.

When going back to basics using Crusader:



Crusader MRE is ((850000*2.5)+(503000*1.7))/1353000 = 2.026 g/t average grade for 95koz.

Reverse engineering the Crusader resource at an average of 2.4 specific gravity (". A mineralised oxide density of 2.20 t/m3
, transitional density of 2.6 t/m3, and fresh rock density of 2.8 t/m3 have been used.") noting/using ("The MRE only considers material above 200 meters vertical depth with a 0.5 g/t Au lower cut off used for delineating mineralisation during modelling, and a greater than 1g/t Au cut off for reporting.").

I get a rectangluar pit of 145m long x 200m deep x 20m width. Completely impractical when a pitwall angle is circa 66 degrees therefore a 200m deep resource requires a 178m open pit top line line width.



Adding to the confusion/lack of detailed information that should have been provided is the following slide.



Does the "Box" dotted line indicate that this is the pit (actually two shallow pits) they are looking at (circa 50m deep)?

Running the calculations again using a 2.12g/t grade, 1.6km length, 50m depth , 14m width at 2.4 density yields a 178koz resource. Close enough to the MRE to be usable with a much more practical pitwall design.

When considering the statement "The MRE only considers material above 200 meters vertical depth with a 0.5 g/t Au lower cut off used for delineating mineralisation during modelling, and a greater than 1g/t Au cut off for reporting.". Did NXM consider a 200m pit depth but then realised only a 50m pit depth is economical at this point in time.

$24M was raised in the past 18 months ($18M spent) to delineate a 175koz econimic resourse. How much more needs to be raised to get the current MRE into the measured category, let alone depth extension/density drilling to increase tonnage?

There are so many questions that should have been answered upon this MRE announcement, that should have left no doubt in investors minds as to whether this project is a go or no-go. The recent pivot to the eastern states just adds to the overall doubt.

NXM has potential, but maths and SP pays the bills. I'm happy to sit out until T2 dip buying/taxloss selling seaon is done (or management provide detailed info) and then reassess.

GLTAH - always happy for my maths to be corrected