Dear Whaler and AG ISM members:

A lot of these questions have been addressed in the current MD&A, or previous MD&As. As we don’t want to look foolish when asking these questions as I want to make sure that it has not already been addressed in the MD&A. One of Randy Millers pet peeves is that shareholders “do not read anything” (his words in my conversation with him).I have filled in answers to the first couple of questions that you have put forth and that the MD&A has already addressed. If further clarification is needed then we need to re-formulate the question.I will continue to review your questions and correlate those to the ISM MD&As and then ask questions that are not addressed by the MD&A. I would hope that anyone that has input to these questions should feel free to put their opinion forward so that we can formulate quality questions. One thing that is notably vague from the MD&A is reference to “Metal Mines”. The only two references to "Metal Mines" in the MD&A are as follows:

"The Company owns, through its 100% owned subsidiary Metal Mines Inc., a 100% interest in 28 unpatented claims consisting of 69 contiguous claim units (the “ Langmuir Property ”) covering approximately 1,090 hectares in the north-central part of Langmuir Township, Porcupine Mining Division, Ontario."

--- and ---

It has also announced that it is considering spinning off its wholly owned subsidiary
Metal Mines, Inc. which holds title to the Langmuir Property and then distributing the stock of Metal Mines, Inc. in some form of a stock dividend."

I think we want to put the question in the form “Does ISM still intend to spin-off Metal Mines as a separate entity from ISM?". If the answer is “yes” then we should formulate the “Metal Mines” questions after that.Just some thoughts on my part.

aatozz

P.S. Agoracom apparently limits you to 4 private messages per day.

Langmuir/Micon related questions:

1)Are they drilling now at Langmuir?....if so how many rigs?

>From Page 16 of the May 17th MD&A

“Since the release of the January 6, 2010 Report, attention is now being focusing upon exploring those nearby anomalies present on that property whose initial results indicate high value ores. Planning of the next exploration program that aim on the nickel deposit extensions and on parallel mineralized zones was also carried out. During the three month period ended March 31, 2010, the work on the Langmuir property was limited to the logging and assaying of some of the previous exploration holes.”

> Answer is NO, no rigs; processing samples that have already been drilled but not assayed.Mark V indicated that they have only assayed approximately 10% of what has been drilled.This is why Hole 51 was discovered after the fact.

2) Are they committed to following through on Micon recommendations, as it has been 4 months since the report came out and we have not heard anything to say they are?

>From Page 12 of the May 17th MD&A

“The content of nickel bearing mineralization for only two of the various zones (i.e. Langmuir North Deposit and the Langmuir No 1 Deposit) of the Langmuir Property, was evaluated by Micon International Ltd. of Toronto, Ontario, which was retained in the previous fiscal year. Those zones were chosen in that those had been extensively core drilled to the approximate depth of 250 meters. Accordingly, it was important to determine the extent of the indicated mineralization located on those two zones contained. No evaluation was made for any other portion of the Langmuir Property, even though early results indicate the possibilities of significant mineralization in other areas. Neither was any evaluation done on those two zones below the depth just indicated even though the core drilling results were open at those depths.

That evaluation process applied was extensive and continued throughout the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.A total of 9,982 pulps (4,249 samples from Langmuir No. 1 and 5,733 samples from Langmuir No. 2 – North Zone) for re-assaying for nickel, copper, gold, platinum, palladium and specific gravity at Activation Laboratories Ltd. Of Ancaster, Ontario.”

> From Page 16 of the May 17th MD&A

“That study, which was released on January 6, 2010, was not intended to be comprehensive reserve study of the whole Langmuir Property or even of the specific geographic areas covered in that report. It was only intended in analysis just those two areas, namely, the Langmuir North Deposit and the Langmuir No 1 Deposit, where concentrated drilling had indicated a large reserve of lower grade but minable mineralization potentially recoverable from open-pit mining.

As some of the core drilling on the those two deposits which were included in that study were open at depths, the further potential of the two areas included in the report may themselves warrant yet further testing. Apart from those areas, test drilling on anomalous areas outside of the zones included in that report have indicated the possibilities upon which further exploration is planned.

Since the release of the January 6, 2010 Report, attention is now being focusing upon exploring those nearby anomalies present on that property whose initial results indicate high value ores. Planning of the next exploration program that aim on the nickel deposit extensions and on parallel mineralized zones was also carried out. During the three month period ended March 31, 2010, the work on the Langmuir property was limited to the logging and assaying of some of the previous exploration holes.”

> Answer is they have concentrated on the two mineralization zones outlined in the October Micon report on Sedar.They have not tested depths below the 250M or outside those two mineralization zones.This is consistent with past ISM MD&As that have always indicated that this was in the early stages of open-pit.This implies that there is the real potential for more, new substantial discoveries.Mark V indicated that only 10% of the drill cores have been assayed and only 8% of Langmuir has been drilled (not including depths beyond 250M).This means that only 0.8% of Langmuir has been assayed.