Hole ID Entire Limonite Saprolite Easting* Northing* RL EOH

intersection@ intersection# intersection~ (m) (m)

KO-160

5.0m @ 1.68% Ni from surface

3.0m @ 2.13% Ni from 1.0m

578840

9066240

152.0

9.3

KO-170

4.5m @ 1.21% Ni from surface

578876

9066184

167.0

6.2

KO-175

4.0m @ 1.54% Ni from surface

3.0m @ 1.73% Ni from 1.0m

578900

9066172

165.0

5.5

KO-176

3.8m @ 1.34% Ni from surface

2.8m @ 1.54% Ni from 1.0m

578909

9066150

165.0

6.0

KO-177

9.6m @ 1.07% Ni from 2.0m

1.0m @ 1.29% Ni from 7.0m

578903

9066122

165.0

13.5

KO-189

10.0m @ 1.59% Ni from 1.0m

7.2m @ 1.83% Ni from 2.8m

578924

9066130

165.0

15.2

KO-190

17.3m @ 1.17% Ni from surface

8.6m @ 1.27% Ni from 1.0m

578925

9066152

172.0

17.3

KO-191

15.5m @ 1.66% Ni from surface

2.0m @ 1.52% Ni from 1.0m

10.0m @ 2.00% Ni from 3.0m

578926

9066174

167.0

15.5

KO-192

15.0m @ 1.66% Ni from surface

4.0m @ 1.38% Ni from 1.0m

10.0m @ 1.87% Ni from 5.0m

578926

9066199

164.0

16.2

KO-194

6.0m @ 1.51% Ni from surface

2.1m @ 1.87% Ni from 2.0m

578950

9066220

162.0

9.3

KO-195

10.0m @ 1.45% Ni from surface

3.0m @ 1.72% Ni from 3.0m

3.0m @ 1.97% Ni from 6.0m

578944

9066200

165.0

11.2

KO-196

7.0m @ 0.96% Ni from 1.0m

2.0m @ 1.25% Ni from 2.0m

1.0m @ 1.21% Ni from 4.0m

578948

9066177

173.0

11.0

KO-197

19.0m @ 1.62% Ni from surface

14.0m @ 1.89% Ni from 1.0m

578950

9066148

174.0

20.3

KO-198

7.0m @ 0.95% Ni from 1.0m

578950

9066130

176.0

10.6

KO-199

17.0m @ 1.69% Ni from 1.0m

2.0m @ 1.22% Ni from 3.0m

12.0m @ 1.96% Ni from 5.0m

578950

9066104

172.0

19.5

KO-201

9.0m @ 1.16% Ni from surface

4.0m @ 1.64% Ni from 3.0m

578945

9066030

154.0

9.0

KO-202

8.0m @ 1.50% Ni from 1.0m

6.0m @ 1.69% Ni from 2.0m

578942

9065998

154.0

11.2

KO-203

7.6m @ 1.26% Ni from 1.0m

2.0m @ 1.85% Ni from 3.0m

578984

9066177

157.0

10.5

KO-204

10.0m @ 1.24% Ni from 2.0m

4.4m @ 1.66% Ni from 6.6m

578973

9066020

157.0

13.6

Hole ID Entire Limonite Saprolite Easting* Northing* RL EOH

intersection@ intersection# intersection~ (m) (m)

KO-205

10.0m @ 1.82% Ni from surface

4.0m @ 2.18% Ni from 2.0m

4.0m @ 1.86% Ni from 6.0m

578969

9066054

161.0

11.5

KO-206

17.0m @ 0.96% Ni from surface

3.0m @ 1.44% Ni from 7.0m

2.0m @ 1.33% Ni from 10.0m

578975

9066151

181.0

21.0

KO-207

6.0m @ 1.63% Ni from 1.0m

2.0m @ 1.47% Ni from 2.0m

3.0m @ 1.96% Ni from 4.0m

578972

9066178

176.0

11.0

KO-208

3.8m @ 0.98% Ni from 1.0m

578986

9066205

176.0

5.8

KO-209

10.0m @ 1.10% Ni from surface

4.0m @ 1.48% Ni from 4.0m

1.0m @ 1.28% Ni from 8.0m

579004

9066199

179.0

11.8

KO-210

17.0m @ 1.52% Ni from surface

2.0m @ 1.84% Ni from 6.0m

7.0m @ 2.17% Ni from 8.0m

579001

9066154

184.0

20.0

KO-211

9.3m @ 1.37% Ni from 2.0m

2.0m @ 1.55% Ni from 5.0m

4.0m @ 1.78% Ni from 7.0m

578996

9066020

152.0

14.6

KO-212

3.0m @ 0.81% Ni from 1.0m

578548

9066106

99.0

7.6

KO-213

7.5m @ 1.42% Ni from surface

2.0m @ 1.75% Ni from 2.0m

3.0m @ 1.66% Ni from 4.0m

578500

9066104

78.0

12.8

KO-214

3.0m @ 0.93% Ni from 1.0m

578450

9066103

78.0

7.4

KO-215

3.3m @ 0.83% Ni from surface

578402

9066103

75.0

6.0

KO-216

5.0m @ 0.77% Ni from surface

578402

9066059

73.0

7.2

KO-217

578446

9066042

73.0

4.6

KO-218

3.3m @ 0.82% Ni from surface

578504

9066056

80.0

9.2

KO-219

6.5m @ 1.51% Ni from surface

2.5m @ 1.73% Ni from 2.0m

1.5m @ 2.09% Ni from 4.5m

578548

9066050

85.0

9.0

KO-252

14.0m @ 1.53% Ni from surface

6.0m @ 2.30% Ni from 5.0m

578999

9066177

182.0

14.0

HA-253

7.7m @ 1.33% Ni from surface

5.0m @ 1.47% Ni from surface

580953

9066276

229.0

10.0

HA-258

580977

9066251

228.0

2.3

HA-257

8.0m @ 1.56% Ni from surface

4.0m @ 1.72% Ni from surface

3.0m @ 1.61% Ni from 4.0m

580950

9066252

228.0

11.5

HA-263

11.7m @ 0.99% Ni from 2.0m

2.2m @ 1.37% Ni from 5.5m

1.9m @ 1.24% Ni from 7.7m

580972

9066224

228.0

18.8

HA-264

16.0m @ 1.08% Ni from 1.0m

1.0m @ 1.63% Ni from 5.5m

581002

9066222

228.0

18.3

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Sampling techniques

Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. 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.

Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representation and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.

Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are

Material to the Public Report.

In cases where 'industry standard' work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg 'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay'). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg

submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed

information.

Currently utilising NQ single tube core in sampled intervals.

 Handheld XRF analysers were used in field for initial analysis to guide site geologist or field assistants in deciding to end the hole.

 Samples were collected generally at 1.0m interval. In changes in geology a range of intervals from 0.3m minimum to 1.25m maximum.

 Whole core samples were sent to the laboratory.

Drilling techniques

Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of Diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).

NQ single tube by tungsten carbide bit employing man portable machines commonly used in laterite drilling in Indonesia and the Philippines.

 Holes were drilled vertically through the limonite and saprolite zones into underlying basement.

Drill sample recovery

Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.

Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.

Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.

NQ coring was by single tube to maximise core recovery.

Average sample recovery exceeded 99%. In most cases laterite core recoveries exceeded 100% due to "swelling"-bit cuttings getting into the inner.

Axiom has implemented a dry drilling technique in the top limonite zone and a low water technique in lower saprolite zone-bringing average recoveries to more than 99%.

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Logging

Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.

Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.

The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.

All holes were:

 marked up for recovery calculations

 geologically marked up and logged

 marked up for sampling interval and density determination

 photographed.

In-situ wet density is determined by calliper method for limonite and saprolite and water displacement method for irregular shaped bed rock. A 10cm length of representative sample for every lithology is selected for density measurement.

Core was also geotechnically logged for hardness, fractures, fracture frequency, recovery and mining characteristics.

All laterite intersections were analysed by standard laboratory techniques for mine grade and trace element values.

Sub- sampling techniques and

sample preparation

If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.

If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.

For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.

Quality control procedures adopted for all sub- sampling stages to maximise representation 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.

Whole core was delivered to the laboratory. All sample reduction protocols were by standard laboratory techniques.

A range of OREAS nickel laterite standards were inserted into the suite of samples. Blank samples were also inserted. These were inserted 1-2 in every batch of samples (150-200 samples) for all drilling samples submitted.

Core duplicates are collected by splitting the previous sample interval. Duplicates are collected one in every

20 holes (5%) drilled.

Laboratory standards and blanks were inserted into every 20 samples submitted plus repeats were completed every 50 samples.

Quality of assay data and laboratory tests

The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.

For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading 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.

Standard laboratory techniques were undertaken.

 All samples were weighed wet, dried at 90 degrees and then weighed dry to establish minimum moisture ranges and density guides.

 Further drying to 105 degrees prior to reduction to remove all moisture.

 Standard reduction techniques were:

o jaw crusher

o pulveriser

o split to reduce sample to 200g.

 Ore grade by XRF fusion method. Loss on Ignition

(LOI) by thermo gravimetric analysis.

 Where required, trace element analysis for selected elements or 30 element suite completed by four

acid digest and AAS readings.

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Verification of

sampling and assaying

The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.

The use of twinned holes.

Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.

Discuss any adjustment to assay data.

 Eight core holes twinned existing INCO or Kaiser pits or INCO GEMCO drill holes.

 One Axiom hole was twinned by an additional NQ

triple tube core hole 100cm offset.

 One Axiom hole twinned by an additional HQ hole at 80 degrees.

Location of data points

Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.

Specification of the grid system used.

Quality and adequacy of topographic control.

Initial collar location was by handheld GPS reading to

5m accuracy.

After completing the hole, collars are again picked up by GPS for actual location.

All collars are to be picked up by surveyors using differential GPS (DGPS) to 10mm accuracy.

Data spacing and distribution

Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient

to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.

Whether sample compositing has been applied.

 The current release covers drilling on a 25m x 25m hole spacing

 The expected outcome is appropriate for a measured resource category

Orientation of data in relation to geological structure

Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.

If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.

The nickel laterite is a weathered geomorphic surface drape over ultramafic source units.

All holes and pits were vertical and will be 100% true intersection.

Sample security

The measures taken to ensure sample security.

All samples were escorted off site to a secure facility at the site camp.

On-site security was provided for samples.

Samples were bagged in polyweave bags and zip tied. Chain of custody protocols in place for transport from

laboratories.

Audits or reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.

Axiom has employed highly experienced nickel laterite consultants to review all procedures and results from the 2014 and 2015 drilling phases.

This includes, drill types, depths, collar patterns, assay and other statistical methods.

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Mineral tenement and land

tenure status

Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national 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 in the area.

Prospecting Licence 74/11-80% held by Axiom.

50-year land lease-80% owned by Axiom.

The validity of both the Prospecting Licence and the leasehold was tested and confirmed in a recent Solomon Islands High Court judgment.

The hearing for the appeal against this judgment was completed and pending final decision.

Exploration done by other parties

Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.

 INCO

 Kaiser Engineers

Geology

Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.

Wet tropical laterite.

Drill hole

Information

A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all material drill holes:

 easting and northing of the drill hole collar

 elevation or RL (Reduced Level - elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar

 dip and azimuth of the hole

 down hole length and interception depth

 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.

 Axiom previously completed Diamond coring using HQ and NQ triple tube to maximise recoveries within the mineralised horizons. The current program employs NQ single tube with tungsten carbide bit.

 The previous program twinned Kaiser and INCO

test pits, auger holes and the mined area.

 All collars are surveyed using handheld GPS

recorded on UTM grid WGS84-57S with up to 5m accuracy.

 Collar elevation is recorded on RL.

 Drill holes are logged using logging forms.

Relevant hole information such as final depth

(EOH), core recovery, sampling interval, sample number, physical description, geological boundaries, lithology and mineralisation and alteration are noted.

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Data aggregation methods

In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.

Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.

The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.

Only length weighting has been applied to reporting for the program.

Assay intervals are generally undertaken on 1m regular intervals. The intervals are adjusted to geological boundaries with intervals ranging 0.3m minimum to 1.25m maximum.

There are no outlier values requiring adjustment.

An initial 0.6% cut-off is used to define mineralised nickel laterite envelopes. This was also used as the basis for previous Kaiser resource modelling.

A second higher grade 1.2% Ni cut-off combined with the geological data is also used to provide higher grade intercepts more appropriate to some direct shipping requirements.

Relationship between minerali- sation widths and intercept lengths

These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.

If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.

If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg 'down hole length, true width not known').

The laterite is thin but laterally extensive. The intercepts are almost perpendicular to the mineralisation.

Drilling so far has been confined to the major ridgelines due to access and deposit geometry.

Diagrams

Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations 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.

See figure 1 and figure 2.

Balanced reporting

Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.

Both low and higher grade intercepts are reported with corresponding thickness.

Other substantive exploration data

Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.

Both INCO and Kaiser Engineers undertook circa 6000 drill holes and pits, feasibility studies and economic analysis.

Most of these studies were conducted prior to the establishment of the JORC Code.