Title: Fathom Nickel Now Focused on Known High-Grade Chutes at Gochager
Show: Mining Network (YouTube; host Peter)
Guest: Ian Fraser (President & CEO, Fathom Nickel — CSE: FNI / OTC: FNICF)
Date: 2026-SEP-18
URL: https://youtu.be/7LNxjVCmiAM
Length: 26:09
Note: YouTube auto-transcript pasted by Stephen; fillers (um/uh/you know/I mean tics) and stutters removed, wording otherwise verbatim. ASR corrections: Gochager/Go Shagger/Oshagger/goaga/go sugar = Gochager Lake; ME = MRE (mineral resource estimate); Mayic ultramaic/ultraafic/ultramix = mafic-ultramafic; metaceiment/metacediment/metaediment/metaciment = metasediment; brees/breches = breccias; geoysics = geophysics; carp = copper; Baron = barren; death = depth; made in = maiden; bore hole end = borehole EM; St. Peters = Peter (Dr. Peter Lightfoot); expiration = exploration; sulfetic/sulfitic = sulphidic; dur = drill; overburn = overburden; Mads Mill = Madsen (not applicable here). "Doug" = a Fathom colleague, left as spoken. Speaker turns marked ">>" (host Peter asks, Fraser answers).
======================================================================

(00:00) Ian Fraser, president and CEO of Fathom Nickel joins us again. Ian, good to be with you. >> Great to be here, Peter. Good to see you again. >> Very good to see you as well. Lot of activity over the summer. First of all, why don't you just give us a bit of an update since we last had a chat? What's changed? >> Yeah, well, over the last couple of weeks or the last week, we've put out two press releases that spoke to the phase 2 diamond drill program.
(00:28) That was the drilling that we did in June. But prior to announcing the results of the phase 2 drilling, we put out our maiden mineral resource estimate which was something that, while I was at the project in June, myself, the QP who authored the MRE spent some time with us at the project doing what they have to do to prepare for the MRE.
(00:55) And then after a lot of internal deliberation amongst myself and Doug and our board of directors, we decided to put the press release out around the MRE. But we wanted to wait first to get all the assays in and get an understanding of the assays and what the assays were telling us.
(01:19) And I think the assays are quite clearly telling us that there is room for expansion on this historic Gochager Lake deposit. >> Why don't we start there actually in terms of the actual exploration side of things and what you've learned because I do want to go into the MRE as well because obviously you did only use historic, you haven't used any modern holes in the new resource.
(01:41) So there's a few things to talk about there, but in terms of how the phase 2 drilling has gone in general, what have you learned? >> Yeah, the phase 2 drilling was not part of the mineral resource estimate. So the modern holes in the MRE were two holes that were drilled in 2018 and then the holes that Fathom drilled in 2023 and 2024.
(02:08) And so the phase one and phase two drilling in 2026 were not part of the MRE. But to step back and sort of a bird's eye view, what have we learned from the drilling that we did in 2026? We've learned a lot more about this intrusive suite, that being the mafic-ultramafic bodies, intrusives.
(02:37) And I guess the phase one, the biggest takeaway there is we're recognizing this nickel copper cobalt mineralization, remobilized mineralization in the surrounding metasediment rocks and some of the metasediments that we see caught up internally within these intrusive rocks. So that was a very very positive development.
(02:59) It's sort of changed our thinking in terms of the model that we were pursuing, the geological model that we're using in exploration. And phase two, the fact that we had very very anomalous nickel intercepts 150 m west of the historic deposit, 150 m northeast and to depth tells us that this deposit, this mineralized system is still very much open in all directions, along strike and to depth.
(03:34) And just before we came on air here, Peter, we were talking about the styles of mineralization. Albeit the phase 2 results were somewhat disappointing. I mean, they're very very anomalous in nickel, copper, cobalt, we were consistently seeing the same styles of mineralization.
(03:55) We're consistently seeing these semi-massive to massive sulfide veins and breccias in and amongst the disseminated styles of mineralization which is exactly what the deposit is comprised of. So there's no reason not to think that we go back into these anomalous areas. We will see more of these higher grade veins.
(04:20) Once we figure out the orientations of these veins, we can follow those along their respective strikes and that will add grade along with tons to this potentially growing deposit. >> For those who are less familiar with the story, if we just take a step back, obviously you have your main resource area that's quite an old historic deposit that has had some very high-grade hits in the past.
(04:45) And then obviously you've done this bigger step out program exploring a bit more of the belt. Can you just give us a bit of an overview as to what you know and where the sort of priority zone at Gochager is at the moment? What you know about that and the exciting parts of that part of the project and then give us a bit of a sense of what the scale of this could potentially be with the work that you've done this year.
(05:06) >> Yeah. With the work that we've done this year, we've intersected mineralized variable textured gabbro over a strike length now that's approximately 800 meters and so the original deposit was confined to a strike of about 250 m. So we have now recognized that the favorable host along strike is in excess of 800 meters and then we run into a small lake and I'm convinced that this favorable gabbro unit does continue underneath this lake and further along strike.
(05:46) Target areas: we intersected the mineralization in metasediments that's approximately 600 meters along strike of the historic deposit. We need to understand this mineralization. We need to sort of step back a little bit ahead of any additional drilling, do some more surface mapping and do some more detailed geophysics to try and figure out where that mineralization is going in the metasediments.
(06:17) And in the peripheries of the historic deposit, hole number 29 is telling us that there is greater than 1% nickel in the sulfide veins and breccias in gabbro 150 meters to the southwest and we see it again, I'm repeating myself I think, but we see it again 100 meters, 150 meters to the northeast and to depth. And one of the other encouraging takeaways is, as you're aware, with all the drill holes that we drill, we do follow this up with borehole electromagnetic surveys and some of the
(06:57) strongest responses we are seeing to date seem to be developing towards the bottom of our drill holes. So if you can imagine, we've been drilling these holes into the historic deposit so that we can understand and now we've put some tons and grades to it. But as we continue these drill holes and we decide, okay, we're out of the mineralized zone.
(07:21) We're still in an intrusive rock, but it's not mineralized. We stop the drill holes. And then when we put the probes down, the detector is telling us there's something conductive beyond, off hole, off the end of these drill holes. So, we're seeing that on the southern side of the deposit, and we also see it on the northern side of the deposit.
(07:42) So there's something very very conductive at depth that we originally thought, well, potentially this is going to be massive sulphidic metasediments which are potentially barren, not containing nickel copper cobalt, but now that we've recognized the metasediments surround the intrusive.
(08:09) So if you can imagine we're drilling inside the intrusives and we see all these big big conductors in the metasediments surrounding it. We've just sort of initially thought of them as these potentially barren sulphidic metasediments. But now we've got to rethink that based on the intersection of our hole number 25 which had favorable mineralization in the metasediment.
(08:35) So we have to take another look at these long linear conductors that were defined with the 2008 airborne survey and we have to look at them with the potential that they could be, yes, barren, and barren sulfides is important because if you don't have the sulfur this whole system doesn't work, but there could be zones within these very very conductive areas that are nickel bearing. Right.
(09:06) And I speak to that with a degree of optimism because this is the situation in the Thompson nickel belt. You can have these big bodies of mineralized metasediments, nickel copper cobalt mineralized metasediments, in direct contact with these barren sulphidic metasediments. So I mentioned we sort of had to rethink our model a little bit after that hole number 25 intersection.
(09:38) So lots of interpretation ongoing, I guess, is fair to say. >> Yeah. I guess how does that change your interpretation? Because usually, I remember when we first spoke, this was more of your typical nickel sulfide conduit type system that you were trying to look at.
(10:01) How do you now, I guess this is the thing with exploration, right? The more you learn, the more complex it usually gets. But how do you now go about your exploration programs moving forward? Because there's obviously high-grade nature somewhere within this region that you have found in the past. Do you go after your more typical nickel sulfide type systems or do you go after the metasediments? >> I think we have the luxury of both which is a really nice problem to have and I think that's
(10:35) exactly what our drilling to date has suggested. We know that there is a buildup of sulphidic mineralization within the variable textured gabbro and the fact that we're now seeing it in the metasediments, then we sort of have a two-host-rock approach to this, and how we prioritize that.
(11:05) I think this is sort of one of the challenges of a junior explorer is, with confidence, Peter, I can say this with confidence, I could tomorrow go back to the historic deposit and drill a hole into something that's going to be very well mineralized. We know that. But at the same time, our efforts were, okay, we've got to make this thing bigger.
(11:32) And as a junior explorer, this is no secret, we're not going to be the guys potentially getting this out of the ground. So, we need to identify something of big potential. And so this has been sort of a, how do you appease both worlds here? We need to, yes, we need to respect the retail market and deliver positive results but at the same time we've got to make this project big and so that has been the approach and we continue to believe that it is big.
(12:11) We have defined this 8 kilometer corridor geochemically which is very very favorable and some of the work that is ongoing, and again I know I've mentioned this in the past, but having the luxury of working with Dr. Peter Lightfoot, we've developed a method now, or certainly Peter has developed a method, where we think we can now screen our soil geochemical results and say, okay, well which soil results are speaking to a potential mafic-ultramafic host subsurface versus what is a
(12:51) mafic sedimentary unit that is giving us the soil responses and so we now think that this thing off to the southwest which we call the Wolf Lake anomaly, which is 2 and a half kilometers southwest of the historic deposit, we think that is potentially a mafic-ultramafic source rock below the soil geochemical results.
(13:18) So, if that is the case and we have mineralized ultramafics 2 and a half kilometers southwest of Gochager itself and we continue to work on things further along to the northeast, then we're starting to get into this big scale that we're trying to accomplish here. >> Like you said, it is a bit of a battle because I've seen this with lots of junior companies where obviously you do want to release flashy drill results, but at the same time, you do want to expand the footprint, right, like you were saying. With the MRE that
(13:50) you've released, it seemed like that was more of an exercise rather than to demonstrate anything economic at this point. It was more of an exercise to sort of see how the mineralization ties up and what the distribution looks like. What have you learned from that? And can you apply any of those learnings from this next campaign within the main resource area? >> Yeah.
(14:12) No, that's a really good point. First of all, we were not sure if we had sufficient drill hole density to do an MRE. And so when we approached the authors of the report, Caracle Creek, we first of all wanted to establish that there was sufficient density of drilling that we could come up with a potential resource.
(14:36) But it was more of an exercise to demonstrate continuity of mineralization and then to try and get an understanding of, we've had multiple intercepts of 2% nickel over four meters and 8 meters or one and a half% nickel, what sort of continuity is there in this style of mineralization and how does it contribute to the overall distribution of the mineralization.
(15:14) So we now have an understanding of that. And I guess the biggest takeaway is, if you're intersecting disseminated sulfides 600, 700 meters along strike, I think the takeaway is that potentially you can build up mineralization comparable to what we see at the historic resource. The interpretation is still ongoing.
(15:54) But for instance, if we have a drill hole 600 meters along strike, we have disseminated sulfides and if we have sufficient sulfur where we can do proper nickel tenor calculations and if we recognize that we have nickel tenors of 2 to 3% 600 meters along strike, well, that's the nickel tenor that we recognize at the deposit itself.
(16:18) So we can then comfortably say, all right, well with more drilling over here we're potentially developing another resource comparable to the Gochager Lake deposit. So I guess that's the forever optimist, but I think that's one takeaway, is it was another understanding, another process of fully understanding the makeup of the historic deposit and how can we apply that along strike.
(16:49) We know that we've mapped mineralized gabbros three and a half kilometers along strike of the historic deposit. So we can go back to that particular area with maybe a little bit more confidence. And we were talking earlier about some of the, we're currently stripping some outcrops.
(17:09) And if you have disseminated sulfides in an outcrop three and a half kilometers along strike, well, that's another positive development in this bigger scale that we were speaking about. >> Yeah. Perhaps for the benefit of the audience, maybe just tell us a little bit about the work that's going on at the moment with these outcrops and what you'll hope to achieve there.
(17:29) >> Yeah, we have crews at the project right now. They went in on Monday and Peter and I were discussing off air. We certainly had the forest fire that went through there the summer of 2025 and we were able to get some heavy equipment into the project via the winter trail this past winter.
(17:49) That equipment has stayed there. So we were able to blade off some of these outcrops in the path of the forest fire and remove all the burnt trees and start pushing away some of the overburden. And the intent here, these outcrops are right in the historical deposit area. In fact, drill hole number I12, which was 290 m of half a percent nickel drilled in 1967, that is part of one of these outcrops.
(18:23) So, we're hoping to expose this mineralization on surface and we're hoping that our interpretation of the orientation of some of these higher grade veins and breccias, which we think are north-northeast versus the consistent northeast trend as a whole. So if we do encounter these higher grade shoots in this north-northeast orientation, we will, with a channel saw, we'll be able to cut perpendicular samples across these things.
(19:01) And they're essentially considered horizontal drill holes. So that is something that we could immediately add to the MRE and that would add tons and grade directly up to surface. So this is a bit of an academic exercise but I think it would be, if we do see what we want to see, future drilling will be influenced by the orientation of these higher grade veins and shoots. >> And where do you see the fastest area of growth in terms of adding, outside of this channel sampling
(19:37) exercise that obviously hopefully we'll get some results on over the next few months, which fingers crossed will come back quite well? Outside of the channel sampling, if you were to go back with a drill bit, are there any areas that you can think of where there's some quick easy wins to add more tonnage, add some more grade? >> That's a cool question and the answer is yes.
(20:04) I mentioned, I was a consultant, not Fathom. I was working for somebody else and we drilled these two holes in 2018 which sort of triggered my enthusiasm and imagination for this project. But there were some holes drilled in 1989 and 1990 and we have one drill hole, it was 89-3, and the only reason that this particular drill hole or that series of holes was not included in the maiden MRE is I don't have the assay certificates.
(20:40) They're lost. So by 43-101 compliance, you cannot include things that don't have true assay certificates. But I know where the drill hole is. I found the drill hole. I see the casing sticking out. And this drill hole is drilled from south to north and it goes into the block model and it comes out of the block model and it's mineralized for another 50, 60 meters down the drill hole.
(21:17) Comparably 89-1 and 89-2 are two holes out in the swamp and they are positioned, excuse me, I'm going to use my hand. So if this was our recent hole number 29 and over here is the deposit, these two holes 89-1 and 89-2 are in between our hole 29 and the maiden resource pit, and 1 and 2 are mineralized, which tells me that this distance between 29 and the MRE has tremendous potential for growth. And our borehole EM tells us that we have conductivity from hole 29 off hole left and the most outside hole
(22:08) in the MRE, we have off-hole conductivity off hole right. So there's an area for expansion. There's 100 meters by easily 300 meters in depth that doesn't have any drilling that I think is mineralized. So that is an area that could add tons immediately. >> If you were to go ahead and do another drill campaign,
(22:34) rather than taking that sort of wider map and trying to find out where the boundaries are of the scale of this thing, would it not make more sense in a way just to really pepper where you know there's mineralization, really show the scale, even though it's localized to this one area, the Gochager original drilling? Would it not make sense, I guess, to really show the market: look how big this one area can be. We think there's more.
(23:02) We've already done some tests and there's indications that there are more, but this is how big this first one is potentially going to be. >> The short answer to that is yes. And I think hindsight's 20/20 and it's something that I've been thinking about as I've been going through the results.
(23:20) What would I do next? If I suddenly had the luxury of another three to four million dollar drill campaign, where would I drill holes? I would target some of these higher grade areas within the deposit itself and expand these higher grade areas within the deposit itself. And getting back to this exercise, this exercise that's currently going on, Peter, if there is indeed a north-northeast secondary structure that has remobilized these sulfides and this is why we have
(23:56) these breccias aligned in a north-northeast direction, with the mapping that we have done, we see other similar structural orientations. So maybe if the stripping exercise is successful, this orientation is well exposed, we would change the azimuth of the drilling. We're quite confident drilling northwest to southeast, but perhaps something a little bit more easterly would now be in line.
(24:30) And if you can imagine, okay, targeting what we expose in the stripped outcrop and then just stepping back on a fence and continuing to drill at depth with the intent of defining more of these higher grade shoots which are continuing to depth. That would be a tremendous scenario and that would really, I think, bring the grade potential up, but importantly, I keep stressing this, all the evidence tells us this stuff has been remobilized. Where is that larger accumulation of massive sulfides? I mentioned the zones of
(25:12) higher conductivity north and south, well maybe that's another area that we need to explore. We need to start testing these extremely conductive areas that we originally just kind of wrote off because they were in the surrounding metasediments. So, hopefully, again I'm jumping all over the place, excuse me.
(25:35) But if we can orient ourselves more perpendicular to the higher grade mineralization and drill these, maybe that gives us a little better clue as to where this larger accumulation of massive sulfides is. >> Okay. Well, Ian, best of luck to you and Doug on the trips and the road shows. And hopefully we can have a catch up in a couple of months time once, fingers crossed, you're ready to start drilling again.
(26:03) That would be the perfect scenario. >> Good. Ian, thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Peter.