Vancouver, British Columbia — January 16, 2023  — CaNickel Mining Ltd. (TSX Venture:  CML) (“CaNickel” or the  "Company") is pleased to release a summary of the results of a current  independent Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA”) and Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) on the Company’s Bucko Lake Mine (“the Project”) located 110 km southwest of Thompson, Manitoba near  the Town of Wabowden. The PEA outlines a mine life of 13 years with average annual production of 7.8 million pounds of nickel at average cash costs and  all-in sustaining costs (“AISC”) per  pound  of nickel of US$4.91 and US$6.48, respectively. All dollar figures in this news release are Canadian unless otherwise stated.

Highlights of PEA

     Current  Bucko Lake MRE:

o      Measured and  Indicated  Mineral  Resources of 5.7  million  tonnes grading  1.24%  nickel (“Ni”) (using a 0.7% Ni cut-off grade) and 0.11% copper (“Cu”) for contained metal content of 156.3  million pounds of nickel and 13.4 million pounds of copper.

o      Additional  Inferred  Mineral  Resources of 10.6  million  tonnes grading  1.18%  Ni (using  a

0.7% Ni cut-off grade) and  0.13%  Cu for contained metal content  of 275.6  million pounds of nickel and 31.2 million pounds of copper.

     The PEA indicates that the Project would be rehabilitated from its current  “care and maintenance” status and  placed into operation to produce 101 million pounds of payable nickel over a 13-year mine life.

     Using  a base case future  life-of-mine  (LOM) nickel  price  assumption  of US$9.84/lb,  the  Project generates:

o      Pre-tax net present value using a discount rate of 6% (NPV6%) of $205 million and Internal

Rate  of Return  (IRR) of 32%; and

o      After-tax NPV%  of $169 million and IRR of 30%

     Sensitivity analysis using a recent spot nickel price of US$13/lb for LOM, the Project generates:

o      Pre-tax NPV6%  of $531 million and IRR of 65%; and

o      After-tax NPV6%  of $389 million and IRR of 59%

     Initial capital costs of $87 million (including $11 million contingency) with payback in 3.3 years.

     The existing 1,000  tonne-per-day (“tpd”) processing plant would be upgraded to 1,500  tpd.

     Average  cash costs of US$4.91/lb Ni and AISC of US$6.48/lb Ni.

     Opportunities exist for operations to continue beyond the current  LOM plan using resources from multiple known satellite deposits on active company claims: three  contiguous deposits are located

within 4 km from the Bucko Lake Mine, and a fourth deposit is located approximately 30 km away.

     The PEA supersedes the March 31, 2009,  Technical Report  for the Project and  Mineral Reserves are no longer declared for the Project.

"We are encouraged by the positive economics demonstrated by this PEA for the Bucko Lake Mine,” stated Kevin Zhu, CEO  of CaNickel Mining Limited. “The Project represents one  of the  more  advanced, higher grade nickel sulphide projects in North America and benefits from existing infrastructure, including a previously operated 1,000  tpd process plant which we placed on care  and  maintenance due  to low nickel prices in 2012.  With demand and  prices now surging for Class 1 nickel sulphide on the back  of increased demand in electric vehicle batteries, production at the Bucko Lake Mine appears to be economically feasible once  again.”

Mr. Zhu added: “CaNickel now intends to advance on two fronts in the coming months: (1) review options for restructuring  the  Company’s  $90+  million  in  corporate debt;  and  (2) seek to advance the  Project  by completing a mine restart and  closure plan along with pursuing growth opportunities by updating Mineral Resource Estimates for its four satellite deposits.”

PEA Financial Summary*

*Cautionary Statement: The  Bucko Lake  PEA was prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-

101  Standards of Disclosure  for Mineral  Projects.  Readers are  cautioned  that  the  PEA is  preliminary  in nature. It includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them  that would enable them  to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and  there  is no certainty  that  the  PEA outcome will be  realized. Mineral Resources that  are  not Mineral Reserves do not have  demonstrated economic viability.

Preparation of PEA

The PEA was prepared by independent firm P&E Mining Consultants Inc. of Brampton, Ontario, with geotechnical assistance from Knight Piésold Ltd. and backfill assistance by Paterson & Cooke Canada Inc. The PEA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101  – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, and has an effective date  of January 13, 2023. A Technical Report  relating to the PEA, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101,  will be filed on www.SEDAR.com and  posted on the Company's website within 45 days of this news release.

For the PEA base case, a nickel price of US$9.84/lb was used. The Company recognizes that nickel prices have been especially volatile recently and readers therefore should review the Project Economics Summary and Sensitivity to Nickel Price chart in Table 6.

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

The updated MRE incorporates results from a total of 428 drill holes drilled from 1962 to 2013, of which 360 drill holes  intersected  the  mineralization  wireframes  used for the  MRE. Additionally,  recent metal  prices were incorporated into the estimate for the PEA.  The MRE, with an effective date  of January 13, 2023,  is summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Mineral Resource Estimate used for the  PEA

Notes:

1.   Mineral Resources which are  not  Mineral Reserves do not  have demonstrated economic viability.

2.   The  estimate  of Mineral  Resources may  be  materially  affected  by  environmental,  permitting,  legal,  title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

3.   The Inferred Mineral Resource in this estimate has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral  Resource. While  an  Inferred  Mineral  Resource must not be  considered  to be,  or converted into  a Mineral  Reserve, it  is  reasonably  expected that  the  majority  of  the  Inferred  Mineral  Resource could  be upgraded to an Indicated Mineral Resource with continued exploration.

4.   The  Mineral  Resources in  this  Technical  Report  were  estimated  using  the  Canadian  Institute  of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions (2014) and Best Practices  Guidelines  (2019)  prepared by  the  CIM Standing  Committee  on  Reserve Definitions  and adopted by the CIM Council.

5.   Mined areas and barren pegmatite dykes were depleted from the Mineral Resource Estimate.

6.   The 0.70%  Ni cut-off grade was based on an underground long-hole method mining cost of $60/t, processing cost of $33/t,  G&A cost of $12/t, Ni price of US$8.75/lb, 79% Ni process recovery, 90% smelter Ni payable,

16%  mass pull, $276/dmt  smelter treatment charge, $105/wmt  concentrate freight cost, 2.5%  NSR  royalty,

$1/t penalty charge and $3/t price participation cost.

Mineralization  domain  boundaries  were  determined  from  grade boundary interpretation  constrained  by lithological and  structural controls determined from visual inspection of drill hole cross-sections and  level plans. The domain outlines were  influenced by the selection of mineralized material above 0.70%  Ni that demonstrated a  lithological  and  structural  zonal  continuity  along  strike  and  down  dip  and  that  had  a reasonable prospect of economic extraction. The  minimum constrained down-hole sample length for the wireframes  was 2.0  m. In some cases, mineralization  below  0.70%  Ni was included  for the  purpose of maintaining  zonal  continuity  and  minimum  mining  width.  On  each cross-section,  polyline  interpretations were digitized from drill hole to drill hole, however, were not extended more than 25 m into untested territory. The interpreted polylines from each cross-section were wireframed into 3-Dimensional solids.  The resulting solids (domains) were  used for statistical analysis, grade interpolation, rock coding and  Mineral Resource

reporting purposes. Four mineralization domains were constructed for consideration for potential economic underground mining of the Mineral Resource Estimate.

In order to regularize the assay sampling intervals for grade interpolation, a 1.5 m compositing length was selected for the drill hole intervals that fell within the constraints of the above-mentioned Mineral Resource wireframe  domains.  Grade capping  was investigated  and  applied  to the  1.5  m composite  values  in  the database within the constraining domain to ensure that the possible influence of erratic high-grade values did  not  bias  the  database.  A variography  analysis  was undertaken as a  guide  to determining  a  grade interpolation search strategy. The Ni and  Cu grade blocks in the model were  interpolated with the Inverse Distance  Squared method. The  model  block  size  was 2.5  m x 2.5  m x 2.5  m. The  Nearest Neighbour interpolation method was utilized for validation.

Additional mineralization at the Bucko Lake property  not captured in the PEA include four known satellite deposits  located  4 to 30  km distance  from  the  main  deposit.   These include  the  Bowden  Lake,  M11A, Halfway Lake and Apex prospects. All four deposits have  historical mineral resources which the Company will update into compliant  NI 43-101  Mineral  Resource Estimates  in  the  coming  months. These satellite deposits represent an opportunity for extending the operational life of the Project, which will be evaluated in future studies.

Underground Mine Development

Despite underground development challenges associated with geotechnical stability experienced during previous operations at the Bucko Lake Mine from 2009 to 2012, there  are no significant technical issues to preclude successful mining and processing of the nickel-copper mineralization. Optimization of mining methods and  Life of Mine planning with cemented paste backfill hold the key to a successful mine restart and the PEA has adopted the following mine development strategy to overcome previously known issues:

     Rehabilitate  and  re-use existing  development  where  possible  while  avoiding  stopes in  historical production areas:

o      Refit and re-use the existing shaft for broken  rock conveyance

o      Rehabilitate and re-use the existing ramp for trackless equipment access

o      Convert  the  existing 1,000  ft (305  m) Level exploration drift  into new  primary  access on hanging wall (“HW”) side of the deposit

     Change access orientation to the  HW from the  footwall (FW) to improve geotechnical stability of the parallel wireframed domains.

     Improve the ventilation system by relocating ventilation raises to the HW side of the deposit using raise-bores from the 1,000  ft Level to surface.

     Postpone capital development while mining previously accessed areas.

     FW   drifts   will   allow   improved   grade  selection,   bypassing   low-grade   areas   and   allowing improvement of the grade profile by targeting more high-grade areas earlier.

     Alimak ventilation raises will be  attached to FW drifts to facilitate bypassing of levels in a mining block versus using drop raises, allowing further postponement of lateral development.

     Areas of development to be situated away from weaker ultramafic contact  areas. Development will be  done  either  outside  the  ultramafic  unit  or fully inside  the  unit  with  improved  ground  support versus previous efforts at the mine. Intersections with the ultramafic unit, while unavoidable, will be

minimized.

Mine  design  and  planning  were  accomplished  with  the  assistance  of geomechanical  input  from  Knight Piésold Ltd. based on the review of the historical mine performance, experience at similar operating mines, and  empirical  methods. Knight  Piésold  provided  numerous recommendations  on  the  PEA  underground mine plan.

Paterson & Cooke Canada Inc. reviewed the paste backfill system that was previously installed at the Bucko Lake  Mine.  The  system  was  installed  just  prior  to  mine  suspension  in  2012   and   therefore  never commissioned. Recommendations were  provided on rehabilitating equipment, completing the paste plant installation and future test work.

Mining  Method

The  PEA is based on an  underground mine operating at a mining rate  of 1,500  tpd for a mine life of 13 years. The mining method was selected to ensure maximum geotechnical stability and  grade control flexibility while minimizing initial capital expenditure requirements. It is estimated to take  one  year  of pre- production and two years of production to reach the steady-state rate of 1,500  tpd. The underground mine production schedule is summarized in Table 2.

     Long-hole mining, on both transverse and  longitudinal orientations, has been chosen as the main mining method with a small subset (~2% of tonnes) of cut-and-fill mining above existing workings.

     The sublevel spacing is set at 20 m (floor to floor) to allow use of top-hammer or in-the-hole drills.

Mining will be carried out bottom-up  in “blocks” approximately 100 to 150 m in height.

     A stope width of 12 m was selected to limit the hydraulic radius, enhance stability and reduce cable bolting requirements.

     Cemented paste backfill will be utilized to provide improved stope and  ground  support, to improve stope cycling  compared to previous  operational  backfill  practices,  and  to reduce the  amount of tailings stored on surface.

     A modular approach to mining will be used:

o      Stopes will be segregated into high-grade (average 1.31% Ni mined grade) and low-grade (average 0.88%  Ni mined grade) areas using a 1.0%  Ni mined grade as the nominal split between high and low grades.

o      Low-grade  mining areas are deferred where  possible to postpone development costs and improve the  production grade profile (segregation and  selection done  both vertically and laterally).

o      A combination of cemented paste backfill, transverse cross-cuts, and top-hammer drills will

allow for the extraction of low-grade stopes situated between mined-out high-grade stopes later in mine life using up-hole drilling.

     Mining will be kept above the 1,000  ft Level until high-grade stopes in the area are  depleted prior to developing  a  ramp  to the  next  block  to  minimize  CAPEX. This  strategy will  be  repeated in consecutive  blocks  until  the  maximum  mine  depth   of  approximately  900  m  below  surface  is reached.

     Initial  production  will use diesel  trucks to haul  material  to the  shaft  with  later  production  to use battery-powered electric trucks to limit ventilation requirements as the mine progresses deeper.

     Trucks will not enter  FW drifts and load-haul-dump equipment will haul all material to level access re-muck  bays where  the  trucks will be  loaded. This allows smaller FW drift profiles and  reduces ventilation requirements on the levels.

     Trucks will predominantly haul to the  shaft and  a portion of the  tonnage from above the  1,000  ft

Level will be trucked  up the existing ramp directly to surface.

Table 2: Production Schedule Summary

Recovery Methods (Processing)

The  Bucko  Lake  process plant  had  been designed  to process nickel-rich  mineralized  material  from  the underground Bucko Lake  Mine. Upgrades to the  conventional flotation plant have  been envisaged to be consistent with the Company's existing permits. The current  process plant design includes:

     jaw and cone  crushers;

     rod and ball mills;

     flotation circuit with rougher/scavenger/cleaner cells;

     concentrate thickener, Larox pressure filter, concentrate handling facility for transport to smelter

     paste backfill plant; and

     tailings storage facility and  water reclaim.

Other than rehabilitation of existing equipment, process plant upgrades to a 1,500 tpd capacity are planned to consist of:

     installation of a secondary cone  crusher with associated screens, conveyors and dust collection;

     expanded crushed mineralized material feed bin;

     additional flotation cells, including a column cell for the final cleaning stage;

     rougher  concentrate regrind mill; and

     modification and completion of the paste backfill plant, including the installation of vacuum  filters.

Based  on  historical  metallurgical  testwork  and   subsequent analysis,  the  average  nickel  recovery   is estimated  to be  79%  with  an  average 13%  Ni concentrate grade. Copper  and  other  minor  metals  are payable  at  an  additional  4% above the  Ni NSR  payable  based on  a conservative  estimate  of historical production  information  from 2009  to 2012.  Concentrate production is  estimated  to commence at 26,000 tonnes in the  first year  of operation, subsequently average 42,000  tonnes per  year  in the  peak  Ni grade years, and 30,000  tonnes per year thereafter.

Additional Project Infrastructure

In addition to infrastructure that already exists at the Project, the PEA envisages expansion of the tailings storage facility and water treatment plant. An interim tailings storage facility (“ITSF”) was initially built before the mine achieved commercial production in 2009.  The eight-hectare (“ha”) ITSF contains 410,000 tonnes of tailings and  is currently at full capacity. A 36.3-ha tailings storage starter cell was constructed in 2011, with  a 4.3  ha  decant pond.  The  capacity  of the  starter dam  and  pond  will be  increased  during  the  pre- production period and in the first year of production, in order that the facility can contain 7.5 years of tailings production. Periodic capacity increases will be carried out over the mine life to ensure adequate dam freeboard.

Adequate (grid) electrical supply infrastructure is already in place and currently energized.

Capital Costs

Capital cost estimates are  relatively modest given that much  of the Project infrastructure is in place. The majority  of  the  costs are  related  to  underground mine  rehabilitation  and  pre-production  development, followed  by  process plant  capacity  upgrades. The  capital  cost estimates  are  summarized  in  Table  3.

Table 3: Summary of Capital Cost Estimates

Sustaining  capital  costs over  the  life-of-mine  are  estimated  at  $192  million.  The  costs are  primarily  for sustained underground mine development and equipment and to incrementally increase the Tailings Management Facility  capacity.  An additional  $14  million  is  estimated  for  closure  costs, of  which  the Company has already paid a $2.54  million financial security bond.

Operating Costs

The majority of operating costs have  been estimated from first principles, with a minor amount of factoring from  historical  actual  site  costs, and  estimates  from  P&E’s  experience  at  other  mines.  Concentrate transport, smelting, refining, penalties and  price participation costs are  based on a sales agreement with Glencore  that  was established  in  2007  before  the  mine  went  into  production  which  remains  in  effect. Operating costs have  been summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of Life-Of-Mine  Average Operating Costs

Economic Analysis

The financial analysis was carried out using a discounted cash flow methodology, using a 6% discount rate. The  discount rate  is  based on considerations  such as the  Project being  a restart, as opposed to a new operation, within the  stable operating environment of the  Thompson Nickel Belt of Manitoba which is an area that has a long history of successful mining operations.  The financial analysis is summarized in Table

5.

Table 5: Financial Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis

To determine  the  effect  of changes in  key base case assumptions,  P&E prepared a sensitivity  analysis reflecting different commodity prices and discount rates (from 6% to 8%) that could have  a significant effect on the financial performance of the Project. Using different discount rates has a negligible impact on IRR and Payback. Table 6 below presents a sensitivity of economic parameters to a ±30% change in the nickel price in increments of 10%.  Of note  is that  the  current  spot price of nickel is approximately 124%  of the base case assumption.

Table 6: Project Economics Summary and Sensitivity to Nickel  Price

Permitting Requirements

To restore and upgrade the Bucko Lake Mine including a potential new access road, the existing Manitoba Environment  Act License  2808  RR,  issued  in  September 2011  under  the  Manitoba  Environment  Act, requires the submission and  approval of a Notice of Alteration (“NOA”). The NOA must be  reviewed and approved by the  Manitoba  Conservation  and  Climate,  Environmental  Approvals  Branch.  The  NOA will include  details  of the  Bucko  Project  such as construction  activities, timing,  emission controls  and  waste management strategies, as well as environmental effects of the proposed Alteration.   Once  an NOA has been issued for the Project, and with Manitoba approval, permit and license applications can be submitted for other  specific Bucko  revitalization-related activities such as mine dewatering and  underground rehabilitation, petroleum storage, and hazardous waste management.

The only federal permit or approval required is related to the storage and management of explosives.

Qualified Person

The technical content  of this news release has been reviewed and  approved by Eugene Puritch, P.Eng., FEC, CET, President and  Principal Mining Engineer of P&E Mining Consultants Inc. Mr. Puritch is an independent Qualified Person in accordance with NI 43-101.

Note  on Assumptions

The PEA results  are  based on  important  assumptions  made by  the  Qualified  Persons who  prepared the PEA. These assumptions, including those mentioned above, and the justifications for them,  will be described in the PEA Technical Report  that the Company will file on SEDAR and  post on the Company's website within 45 days of this news release.

ABOUT CANICKEL

CaNickel Mining Limited is a Canadian junior mining company that owns the  Bucko Lake Mine, currently on care  and  maintenance, near  Wabowden, Manitoba. From 2009  to 2012,  nearly 450,000 tonnes of mineralized material were  mined to produce 6.9 million pounds of nickel before the mine was put on care and  maintenance due  to operational challenges and  low nickel prices. Today,  the  Bucko Lake  Mine and surrounding satellite deposits continue to host significant nickel sulphide resources grading over 1% Ni.

The  mine  and  surrounding  deposits  benefit  from  excellent  infrastructure  including  roads, rail,  power, internet, personnel, and  equipment. The mine can  be  accessed and  operated all year,  and  existing mine infrastructure  includes  a  1,000-tpd  processing  plant,  paste plant,  on-site  drill  core  shack,  hoist  and headframe,   fine   mineralized   material   bin,   office,   dry   trailers,   compressor  room,   tailings   disposal management area and a 100-person camp.

Further information on  the   Bucko Lake   Mine  is  available at   www.buckolakemine.com and  on

CaNickel at www.canickel.com or contact:

Shirley Anthony

VP Corporate Development

Phone: 778-999-2771

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Website: www.buckolakemine.com

CaNickel Mining  Limited

P.O. Box 35 1655-999 West Hastings Street

Vancouver, British Columbia CanadaV6C 2W2

Tel: 778-372-1806 Fax:  604-254-8863

Forward-Looking Statements

This  press release  may  contain  forward-looking  statements including  those describing  the  Company's future plans and the expectations of management that a stated result or condition will occur. Any statement addressing future events or conditions necessarily involves inherent risk and uncertainty. Actual results can differ materially from those anticipated by management at the time of writing due  to many  factors, most of which  are  beyond the  control  of the  Company. In particular,  this  news release  contains  forward-looking statements pertaining,  directly  or indirectly,  to the  Company's plans  regarding  bringing,  the  Bucko  Lake Mine  back  into  production,  resolving  the  Company’s  indebtedness  and  the  economic  and  operational potential of the Bucko Lake Mine and satellite deposits.

Although the Company believes that the expectations and assumptions on which the forward-looking statements are   based are   reasonable,  undue reliance  should  not  be  placed  on  the  forward-looking statements because the Company can give no assurance that they will prove to be correct.  Since forward- looking statements address future events and  conditions, by their very nature they  involve inherent risks and uncertainties, actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number  of factors and  risks. These include, but are  not limited to, general economic, market  or business conditions, risks associated with the exploration and  development industry in general (e.g.,  the outlook for nickel and copper,  interest   and   exchange  rates,  inflation   and   capital   market   conditions,   operational   risks   in development, exploration and  production; the  uncertainty of Mineral Resource Estimates; the uncertainty of  estimates   and   projections   relating   to  production,   costs  and   expenses,  and   health,   safety   and environmental risks).

Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of risk factors should not be construed as exhaustive. These statements speak only  as of  the  date   of  this  release  or  as of  the  date   specified  in  the  documents accompanying this release, as the case may be. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements except as expressly required by applicable securities laws.

Neither  the  TSX Venture  Exchange nor  its  Regulation  Services  Provider  (as that  term  is  defined  in  the policies of the TSX Venture  Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.