From Micon:

**********************************************************************

Prepare a detailed compilation of the surface and three-dimensional geology and mineralized zones from all available sources to assist in identification of exploration targets in the favourable peridotite units. Such a compilation ideally would be completed using all available drill hole data.

Deep-searching, surface-based EM surveys be carried out along those magnetic anomalies that are observed or interpreted to be related to ultramafic host rocks. Such surveys would be designed to search for higher grade sulphide mineralization at depth. Anomalies identified should be tested by surface-based diamond drill holes.

Continue exploration drilling to search for possible concentrations of higher grade nickel mineralization beneath the known deposits (Langmuir #1, Langmuir #2 and Langmuir North. Micon envisions that such drilling be carried out initially at a wide spacing. Down-hole geophysical surveys (bore hole pulse EM) surveys would be carried out in these deeper drill holes to search for the possible presence of conductive sulphide mineralization in the vicinity of these bore holes.

Examine the environs of the Langmuir #2 deposit by means of shallow drill holes for the possibility of low-grade, near surface mineralization that may be exploited by open pit mining methods.

In respect of the project development aspects of the project, Micon suggests that:



Given the suggested relationship of the bulk density to the nickel grades at the Langmuir No. 1 deposit, Micon recommends that future mineral resource estimates be prepared using the detailed bulk density information so that accurate local estimates of the mineralized tonnages can be derived.

The metallurgical test work on the Langmuir North be completed and metallurgical testing be initiated for the Langmuir #1 deposit



All future met test work should be carried out on a sulphide nickel (Ni(AR)) basis so as to maintain consistency across the project.

The inter-element relationships show that a positive relationship is present between nickel, palladium and platinum where higher palladium and platinum values are correlated with higher nickel values, suggesting the presence of a Ni-Pd-Pt-bearing mineral such as braggite (Pt, Pd, Ni)S in the mineralization found at the Langmuir North deposit. Micon therefore recommends that the palladium and platinum grades in concentrate be determined in any future metallurgical testing programs.

Modify the geological drill hole database to explicitly state the assay method used for the nickel assays for clarity.

Preliminary geotechnical investigations be completed to suggest maximum rock and soil slope angles in support of future open pit modeling exercises.

Preparation of a preliminary assessment be completed to study the economic viability of the mineralization discovered to-date."

**********************************************************************************************

From an earlier post I had made:

I too await recovery numbers..........let's look at the track record and history on the project.

N77.......Do you recall that the Micon announcement came out of ISM camp way back in May/2008?

http://www.inspirationmining.com/news.html?id=81

Kian J. released his report and many posters said it was a possible glimpse at what could be expected from Micon.

http://www.inspirationmining.com/news.html?id=113

There were some delays and there was also some extra drilling at the request of Micon.

http://www.inspirationmining.com/news.html?id=117

We did not see the end result until Jan 2010. It took nearly three years to produce that and the markets were let down by it.

http://www.inspirationmining.com/news.html?id=125

In a nutshell here's what we got after a lot of waiting.

http://www.inspirationmining.com/news.html?id=121

Does it seem like these guys (Micon and ISM) were quick with the task at hand? I would say no, does it see like they did a thorough job? I would say yes.

Did it seem we recieved everything that was described in the original commissioning NR? I would say no. I do not know if they are working on phase 2 or not. Having said that, I would think so as it makes a lot of sense to discover if something is worth chasing before spending time and precious money chasing it. Afterall what are the next logical steps in this business?

You do bring up an interesting point.

"So what if only 15% of the Langmuir Property has been explored! One can basically put down a drill anywhere and find the low grade Ni numbers in the Shaw Dome that ISM has been releasing lately. In the end, it will have to be of a grade that can be recovered economically and that is why it is so important that ISM show the Recovery %‘s on the bulk of their Resource discovered to date from the L-2 in the next Ni 43-101. If ISM can’t even show that their already released "low grade average resource" and recovery % work financially, who cares about the even lower grades they are touting now. Everyone had expected to see the recovery % of the bulk of ISM’s low grade resource last time round. No doubt many shareholders have let ISM know they had better show them this time. Will the company listen and provide these numbers? "

One would think that ISM management along with Andre (the new Geo for Langmuir) working along with previous and possibly present guidance and direction from Micon, would realize and have that same conclusion. This is afterall their field of expertise.

What if the 15% of Langmuir has or does prove out as economic grades and viable to mine by open pit means?

Why are they now touting the "high tonnage lower % Ni" theme for Langmuir? The open pit amenable prospects and the possibility of now 4 ore zones? At his stage of the Langmuir game are they simply rolling the dice? Taking a flyer on the whole show?

As if the old figures weren't enough

"Pursuant to the Micon Report, resources in the Indicated Resources category for the Langmuir North deposit are 8,324,000 tonnes grading 0.40% nickel, as detailed in Table 1. Resources in the Indicated Resources category for the Langmuir No. 1 deposit are 1,733,000 tonnes grading 0.51% nickel"

At the time of writing for the Miocn report, it would appear that Micon has gone on record saying they did not have the details you were expecting they would have and or ISM would have . Micon said it in the report.

As quoted:

"Given the early stage of the project’s development, no detailed information is available in respect of operating costs for mining, processing and general and administration in respect of a potential open pit mining operation. As well, no geotechnical information is available upon which to estimate an overall slope angle. Consequently, Micon derived estimates for these items on the basis of its experience in the region and from general knowledge. It is to be noted that the estimates presented are only for the purpose of developing an initial optimized open pit shell, and the assumed values will likely change with further detailed work."

I agree with you that we need the numbers eventually. It would be logical that ISM feels the same way and will proceed accordingly. They seem to be proceeding as evidenced by recent exploratory drilling in the KCC Allerston area in the NW. The talk of the project having a high tonnage low Ni% prospect.

In light of that possiblity, I have been interested in reading about any projects having similar or even lower grades. I wonder how are they viable and what are they doing that makes them so? I found the readings re: Turnagain (Hardcreek Nickel) interesting. The nature of near surface easily accessible economic mineralization has to be a plus here. Whether it is economic to mine is the unknown by me.

We talked about LBE projects, we talked about Ursa's projects we talked about Turnagain. It would see that there is technology to deal with and handle lower grades especially in Sulphides as opposed tot Laterites.

*******************************************************************************************

Turnagain:

An interview with a little more detail on the process

http://www.resourceintelligence.net/hard-creek-nickel%E2%80%99s-game-changing-metallurgical-breakthrough-boosts-company%E2%80%99s-outlook/15853

Resource Intelligence: Could you give us some numbers that would support the claim that Turnagain is a “giant” nickel-sulphide deposit and also help investors evaluate its
economic potential?

Mark Jarvis: My answers are based on an April 2010 technical report that models a traditional mine, mill and flotation circuit, plus a non-traditional leach process coupled with SX-EW to produce metal on site. Our new model will eliminate the leach and SX-EW, leaving a “plain vanilla” technology mine, and the economics are expected to change. With that caveat in mind treat my answers as indicative of scale only.

Giant nickel deposits are generally defined as those capable of producing more than 20,000 tonnes per annum (t.p.a.) of nickel. The Wardrop report modeled average production of 35,000 t.p.a. of nickel at Turnagain, plus 2,000 t.p.a. of cobalt, with a mine life of 24.4 years.

C1 costs of production were estimated at $3.30 per pound of nickel. C1 is the total cash cost to produce nickel metal, net of by-product credits. That cost is in the most competitive quartile of the giant undeveloped nickel deposits in the world.
Resources are estimated at 695 million tonnes grading 0.216% Ni and 0.014% Co in the measured plus indicated category, plus another 510 million tonnes in the inferred category. Constrained by pit walls, total projected tonnage to be mined is 761.2 million tonnes grading 0.212% Ni and 0.014% Co.
The most common valuation method for mining projects is Net Present Value at a discount rate of 8% (PV8). At an assumed price of $8.50 per pound for nickel, PV8 is estimated by Wardrop at $715 million. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is 10.7%. Payback is 8.1 years. Nickel is currently more than $12 per pound. At $12 nickel, the PV8 is $3.3 billion, the IRR is 19.9%, and the payback is 4.4 years.

*********************************************************************************************

As for working with neighboring stakeholders:

We saw this paragraph in one of the recent Forbes/ISM releases:

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/newsStoryPopup.go?storyId=42208169&topic=ISM:CA&symbology=null&cp=null&webmasterId=92583

Operational Expertise Necessary for Improved Share Price Performance

"Exploration has been the historical focus of URSA Major management; however, a producing asset such as the Shakespeare Mine requires an additional skillset and focus on operations to complement exploration, which the Concerned Shareholders believe is outside the current management team's range of experience. Forbes & Manhattan seeks to bring its operational nickel expertise to URSA Major by the appointment of a new management team that has substantial experience in nickel production and the Sudbury Basin. This new management team at URSA Major would include or have access to Mark Trevisiol, formerly with Xstrata Nickel; David Gower, formerly with Falconbridge Nickel (now Xstrata); Helio Diniz, formerly with Xstrata Canada; and William Randall, formerly with Liberty Mines."

From the last Sedar quarterly, we found this snippet which I had also posted last night. I assume that Liberty fits their description wrt adjoining areas.

Apart from the exploratory activity being carried out in the field, Management is encouraged about recent conversations with adjoining claim holders. Initial discussions indicate openness to joint venture exploration and possible future development of the larger bodies of lower grade mineralization trending from the Company‟s Langmuir Property onto adjoining areas. Those discussions also suggest openness to the same type of arrangement of the higher grade mineralization in the area of the Langmuir No. 2 mine."

I guess we have to wait and see what ultimately develops and what the 43-101 reveals.



















In respect of the exploration potential of the property, Micon suggests the following: