I am not a geo but have picked up quite a bit of knowledge from...

I am not a geo but have picked up quite a bit of knowledge from my old man who has been in the industry for 35 years.

2. MMB claim that the “basal contact” has not been effectively explored – this is interesting, in that, NIA in the latest report are waiting assay results on NMD0009 -“5m of massive sulphide on Basal ultramafic contact” – what exactly is the influence of the basal? and why haven’t previous lease holders nailed this potential aspect?

Think of the ultramafic as a lava flow - nickel being very heavy - will settle to the bottom if it is given the time to 'differentiate' from the other minerals (i.e. if the lava is slow to cool). The 'bottom' is the base over which the lava flows - known as the 'basal contact. It is here that you expect to find 'massive nickel sulphides' IF differentiation occurred.

The lava flows are also unlikely to have flowed over a flat surface, it is likely there were areas along the way where nickel could of been trapped (i.e. some fault/ridge) - hence there may be places along the basal contact where nickel has accumulated in greater quantities. This may also explain why they think the previous explorer didn't explore 'effectively'.

The massive sulphides at Windarra indicate that this particular lava flow (if MMB's ultramafic is the same one) cooled down slowly enough to allow differentiation of it's constituent minerals so that nickel could accumulate at the base (many lava flows cool down too quickly to allow differentiation).

I am always very wary when a company says previous explorers didn't explore the tenement 'effectively'. Another way of saying that is - 'the tenement has been previously explored and nothing of economic significance was discovered'. Previous exploration 'usually' means the prospect has been downgraded in that the potential size of any subsequently discovered resource is likely to be small.

That said - nickel can be quite hard to find so potential may still exist and it is still common for another company to come along - reinterpret the previous results and have another go. For example - over the intervening years since the original lava flow there may have been many geological events which have lifted/distorted/twisted the previously flat ground - hence making it harder again to find those accumulations.


3. Previous lease holder (it was WMC at Windarra, not sure at Red Flag) looks as though they have drilled MMB’s Red Flag region with a number of holes showing >2000ppm. How significant are these?

>2000 ppm is not that significant. Most ultramafics go between 1500 to 3000ppm in any case. I am not privy to the prior results but if they are the highest grades encountered it may downgrade it further. It may indicate that this lava cooled too slowly and did not allow differentiation. OR it may mean the previous explorers failed to locate the basal contact (e.g. due to intervening events twisting/distorting the land).

4. Is there any geological correlations of drill results that can be extrapolated from Windarra to Red Flag…i.e the proximity of some of the drilling at Windarra…NDM004 and NDM004a at Dennys Bore being only metres away from MMB’s lease

Yes if the ultramafic on MMB's tenement is the same (i.e. the same lava flow) - meaning it did cool down slowly enough to allow differentiation and that massive sulphides may be encountered at the basal contact. As mentioned above - if it is the same 'lava flow' and previous explorarion failed to find the basal contct - then MMB's tenement is still prospective for NIA type mineralisation.

Just some closing comments. Windarra is not that great a resource - hence why WMC closed it down. Most of the massive sulphides that occur are rather thin meaning large tonnages are unlikely.

I would not be surprised if Andrew Forrest has something else in mind for NIA or if he has some of his own nickel tenements that he is looking at tipping into NIA.

Hope this helps.