You are on page 1of 41

NexGen:

Delivering the Energy of 1


the Future

August 2017 Corporate Presentation


2
Forward Looking Statement

Information Contained in this Presentation

This presentation is a summary description of NexGen Energy Ltd. (NexGen or the Company) and its business and does not purport to be complete. This presentation is not, and in no circumstances is to be
construed as a prospectus, advertisement or a public offering of securities. No securities regulatory authority or similar authority has reviewed or in any way passed upon the document or the merits of the Companys
securities and any representation to the contrary is an offence.

Except where otherwise indicated, the information contained in this presentation has been prepared by NexGen and there is no representation or warranty by NexGen or any other person as to the accuracy or
completeness of the information set forth herein. This presentation includes information on adjacent properties that was obtained from various publicly available sources referred to herein and the accuracy and
completeness of such information has not been verified by NexGen. Except as otherwise stated, information included in this presentation is given as of the date hereof. The delivery of this presentation shall not
imply that the information herein is correct as of any date after the date hereof.

Forward-Looking Information

The information contained herein contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and forward-looking information within the
meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking information includes, but is not limited to, statements with respect to the activities, events or developments that the Company expects or
anticipates will or may occur in the future, including, without limitation, the completion of the technical report in support of the PEA. Generally, but not always, forward-looking information and statements can be
identified by the use of words such as plans, expects, is expected, budget, scheduled, estimates, forecasts, intends, anticipates, or believes or the negative connotation thereof or variations of such
words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results may, could, would, might or will be taken, occur or be achieved or the negative connotation thereof.
Forward-looking information and statements are based on the then current expectations, beliefs, assumptions, estimates and forecasts about NexGens business and the industry and markets in which it operates.
Forward-looking information and statements are made based upon numerous assumptions, including among others, the results of planned exploration activities are as anticipated, the price of uranium, the cost of
planned exploration activities, that financing will be available if and when needed and on reasonable terms, that third party contractors, equipment, supplies and governmental and other approvals required to
conduct NexGens planned exploration activities will be available on reasonable terms and in a timely manner and that general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner.
Although the assumptions made by the Company in providing forward-looking information or making forward-looking statements are considered reasonable by management at the time, there can be no assurance
that such assumptions will prove to be accurate.

Forward-looking information and statements also involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, which may cause actual results, performances and achievements of NexGen to differ materially
from any projections of results, performances and achievements of NexGen expressed or implied by such forward-looking information or statements, including, among others, negative operating cash flow and
dependence on third party financing, uncertainty of the availability of additional financing, the risk that pending assay results will not confirm previously announced preliminary results, imprecision of mineral resource
estimates, the appeal of alternate sources of energy and sustained low uranium prices, aboriginal title and consultation issues, exploration risks, reliance upon key management and other personnel, deficiencies in the
Companys title to its properties, uninsurable risks, failure to manage conflicts of interest, failure to obtain or maintain required permits and licenses, changes in laws, regulations and policy, competition for resources
and financing, or other approvals, and other factors discussed or referred to in the Companys Annual Information Form dated March 31, 2017 under Risk Factors.

Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking information or implied by forward-looking
information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.

There can be no assurance that forward-looking information and statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated, estimated or intended.
Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements or information. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or reissue forward-looking information as a result of new
information or events except as required by applicable securities laws.
3
34

Why Uranium?

1 Million Deaths Per Year in China Due to Air Pollutio

Source: World Health Organization


4
Global Electricity Demand Growth

Source: World Energy Outlook 2016, IEA


5
Future Uranium Supply Deficit

Estimated supply
deficit of 40-
70Mlbs in 2023

Estimated 1 billion pounds of uncontracted demand over next decade with majority of long-
term contracts expiring in 2019/2020.
6
Return to Contracting

Last major contracting


period was 2005-2009
with many contracts
rolling off over next
few years.

Return to normalized
contracting will mean
return to normalized
pricing.
High Sovereign Risk in Uranium Sector 7

Uranium supply geographically concentrated.


Potential supply disruptions from sovereign or technical sources.
Leading Suppliers Cutting Production 8

Kazatomprom announced
meaningful production cuts of at
least 10%.

Cameco, the Western worlds


leading supplier of uranium, also
announced production cutbacks
from mines in Canada, U.S. and
Kazakhstan.
9

NexGen Overview
10
Overview: NexGen Projects
!
Gunnar !
! Lorado

NORTHWEST ATHABASCA Athabasca Basin Projects


Saskatchewan, Canada

Scale - 1:1 600 000 Projection - NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N

Roughrider RADIO
McClean Lake
Midwest Lake
"
"[ ! Eagle Point
Cluff Lake Natona Bay [ ! ! Collins Bay
! !
NORTH THORBURN "
[ Rabbit Lake

"
[ Cigar Lake !
Shea Creek
THORBURN LAKE MADISON
2Z LAKE
Alberta

McArthur River
! CARLSON CK.


Spitfire

t
u
"["
[[
Centennial Millennium Phoenix 905
Patterson Lake
South
" "
[ "
[ "
[
Dufferin Lake "
[
BOW, ARROW "
[ Maverick
Legend
& HARPOON
DISCOVERIES ROOK I PROJECT
Key Lake
" Discovery / Mineral Deposit
[
! ! Active or Depleted Uranium Mine
t
u
955 NexGen Mineral Tenure
IsoEnergy Mineral Tenure
Other Mineral Tenure
0 25 50 Athabasca Basin Margin
Km

*IsoEnergy is a 72% owned subsidiary of NexGen

Cluff Lake Mine - 70 km to the northwest of Arrow, operated during the 90s by AREVA
11
Dominance in Southwest

Arrow is the largest


undeveloped uranium
deposit in the Basin.

Opportunity for more zones


of mineralization across the
property and is currently
being tested.
12
Positive PEA Results
PEA Financial Highlights
After-Tax Net Present Value (NPV8%) CAD $3.49 Billion
After-Tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 56.7%
After-Tax Payback 1.1 Years
Pre-production Capital Costs (CAPEX) CAD $1.19 Billion
Average Annual Production (Years 1-5) 27.6 M lbs U3O8
Average Annual Production (Life of Mine) 18.5 M lbs U3O8
Mine Life 14.4 Years
Average Unit Operating Cost (Years 1-5) CAD $5.53 (US $4.42)/lb U3O8
Average Unit Operating Cost (Life of Mine) CAD $8.37 (US $6.70)/lb U3O8
Uranium Price Assumption USD $50/lb U3O8
Saskatchewan Royalties (Life of Mine) CAD $2.98 Billion

Uranium Price ($ USD/lb


After-Tax NPV After-Tax IRR After-Tax Pay Back
U3O8)
$80/lb U3O8 CAD $6.45 Billion 82.3% 0.7 Years
$60/lb U3O8 CAD $4.48 Billion 65.9% 0.9 Years
$50/lb U3O8 CAD $3.49 Billion 56.7% 1.1 Years
$40/lb U3O8 CAD $2.49 Billion 46.2% 1.4 Years
$30/lb U3O8 CAD $1.50 Billion 34.1% 1.9 Years
$25/lb U3O8 CAD $1.00 Billion 27.0% 2.4 Years

Inferred Mineral Resources in PEA


The PEA is preliminary in nature and 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. There is no certainty
that PEA results will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Based on 8% discount rate and 0.80US/1.00CAD exchange rate.
13
Strategic Global Position

Recovered Uranium
30.0 27.2 28.4 27.7 27.6 27.0 3.50%
24.9

Head Grade (% U3O8)


25.0 20.7 3.00%
19.1 2.50%
(M lbs U3O8)

20.0
12.8 12.3 2.00%
15.0 10.6
8.9 8.4 8.3 1.50%
10.0
1.00%
5.0 3.2
0.50%
- 0.00%
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15

Recovered U3O8 Head Grade


Global Uranium Producers
Company Annual Production (Mlbs U3O8) % of Global Supply
28.6 21%
27.6 20%
23.0 17%
19.8 14%
17.4 13%
7.1 5%
5.9 4%
5.4 4%

Source: Data published by World Nuclear Association (2016). Asset production shown on total basis as at the end of 2015.
NexGen production shown is based on projected average production over first 5 years.
14
Cash Flow Generation

Unit Years 1-5 Years 1-10 LOM


Recovered Production
Tonnes per Day tpd 1,430 1,445 1,448
Average Annual Pounds U3O8 000 lbs U3O8 27,591 22,771 18,549
Average Annual Grade U3O8 % 2.62 2.14 1.73
Total Pounds U3O8 000 lbs U3O8 137,955 227,713 267,203
Unit Operating Cost per Tonne
Total Operating Cost C$ / t proc 305 303 306
Unit Operating Cost C$ / lb U3O8 5.53 (US $4.42) 6.73 (US $5.39) 8.37 (US $6.70)
Operating Margin % 90.4 88.3 85.5
15
Mining Method: Long Hole Stoping

Long Hole Mining: Transverse and


Longitudinal
Shaft access
Internal decline
Cemented Paste Fill Tailings using
Underground Tailings
Management Facility (UGTMF) to
reduce surface footprint
16
Conventional Processing

Process Schedule
600 3.50%

500 3.00%
Conventional processing facility:

Process Throughput (ktpa)


2.50%
1. Crushing and Grinding 400

U3O8 Grade
2. Acid Leaching (8 hour leach cycle) 2.00%
3. Liquid-Solid Separation via Counter 300
Current Decantation (CCD) 1.50%
4. Solvent Extraction 200
5. Yellowcake Precipitation 1.00%

6. Paste Tailings Plant 100


0.50%

- 0.00%
Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Processed Tonnes Head Grade


17
Conservative Build Up of Capital Costs
Total Capital Cost:
Initial C$1.19 B
Sustaining: C$0.47 B
Initial Capital Costs Sustaining Capital
1400000 450000
400000
1200000
350000
1000000 300000

C$ '000
800000 250000
C$ '000

200000
600000
150000
400000 100000
200000 50000
0
0
18
Conservative Build Up of Capital Costs
Pre-Production Capital Summary C$ '000 US$ '000
Underground Mining
UG Mobile Equipment 32,082 25,666
UG Fixed Equipment 55,355 44,284
Horizontal Development 41,186 32,949
Vertical Development 168,576 134,861
Capitalized Pre-Production Operating Costs 26,934 21,547
Indirect - Mining Equipment 22,245 17,796
Indirects - Mine Development 71,529 57,223
Contingency - Mine Equipment 27,420 21,936
Contingency - Mine Development 70,323 56,258
Total Pre-Production Mining Capital Costs 515,649 412,519
Processing
Process Plant 233,008 186,406
Process Infrastructure 10,880 8,704
Indirects - Processing 95,678 76,542
Contingency - Processing 90,678 72,542
Total Pre-Production Processing Capital Costs 430,244 344,195
Infrastructure
Pre-Production Infrastructure 143,099 114,480
Indirects - Infrastructure 51,516 41,213
Contingency - Infrastructure 48,654 38,923
Total Pre-Production Infrastructure 243,269 194,615

Total Pre-Production Capital


Pre-Production Mining 515,649 412,519
Pre-Production Processing 430,244 344,195
Pre-Production Infrastructure 243,269 194,615
Total Pre-Production Capital 1,189,161 951,329
19
Conservative Build Up of Operating Costs

Due to
conventional
underground
mining methods,
unit operating
costs are well
understood and
established based
on first principles.

Conservative
underground
mining cost per
tonne.

Notes:
Unit operating costs are the sum of site-based mining, processing, and general and administration.
All of the comparable projects are underground mines with production rates ranging from nominally 1,000 tpd to 6,000 tpd.
The majority of data points are mines that are considered to be in remote areas.
Data is based on a variety of sources, including SNL Metals and Mining, and publicly available information. NexGen makes no representations as to the
reliability of this information.
20
Lowest Cost Conventional Mine

Despite
conservative per
unit cost
assumptions, due
to technical
setting and grade,
per pound cost is
estimated to be
the lowest of any
conventional
mine globally.

Highlights the
competitive
advantage
NexGen has with
simple technical
setting and high
grade profile.
Notes:
Arrow production and costs based on PEA results.
All other data based on 2016 modelled costs and production from SNL Metals and Mining. NexGen makes no representations as to the reliability of this
information.
SNL estimates costs and production for approximately 70% of uranium operations.
Costs include operational costs.
Costs exclude sustaining capital costs, taxes, profit-based royalties, depreciation, and corporate costs.
The cost curve does not consider secondary supplies of U3O8.
21
Arrow is One of the Highest Return Mining Projects Globally

Uranium Other Commodities

Athabasca Basin Undeveloped (1)

U Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Au Au Zn Ag Au Au Au Au Au Zn Au Au

106%
$6.1bn $4.7bn
$4,000 60%
57%

$3,000 45%
Project After-Tax NPV (US$mm)

42% 43% 43%

Project After-Tax IRR (%)


37%
34% 35%
31% 31%
$2,000 30%
29%
26%
23%
20%
18%
17% 16%
$1,000 14% 15%
12%
10% 9%
8%

- -
(2) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Source: TD Securities Based on current after-tax project NPV and IRR, Arrow stands out as amongst the
most economically attractive assets at a development stage.
(1) Represent current technical reports
Timok acquired by Nevsun in 2016
(2) Technical reports for McArthur River and Cigar Lake based on current NI 43-101 reports dated November 2012 and March 2016,
Coffee acquired by Goldcorp in 2016
respectively. McArthur River and Cigar Lake shown on an attributable to Cameco basis. NPV and IRR shown on a pre-tax basis
Caspiche acquired by Goldcorp in 2017
(3) Wheeler River shown on a 60% ownership basis to Denison
Lamaque acquired by Eldorado in 2017
(4) Based on the reference case of the 2011 preliminary assessment for the Pebble Project. NPV and IRR shown on a pre-tax basis
(5) Based on the two-stage development of Kakula and Kamoa deposits Denotes recently acquired assets
(6) Caspiche Project shown on the basis of development option #2
22
Canadas Largest High Grade Uranium Deposits

Source: All information is sourced from issuers websites and has not been verified.
All amounts are net amounts owned by operator.
23
+100Mlb High Grade Deposits in Canada

Source: All information is sourced from issuers websites and has not been verified.
*Cigar Lake and McArthur River grades are reserve grades.
24
The Arrow Advantage

100 m

10 m

competent

Sandstone-hosted deposits (egress type)


Arrow is a basement-hosted zone
tend to have mining challenges due to
(ingress type) which NexGen
the mineralization is perched within
anticipates will not require freezing
the unconsolidated and wet Athabasca
to extract due to competent ground
Sandstone unit requiring freezing.
setting.
25
Arrow: Plan View

Current plan view of Arrow


deposit.

Currently consists of 5
vertical parallel shears; A1,
A2, A3, A4 and A5 that
trend along strike
northeast-to-southwest.

Currently drill testing to


define boundaries at Arrow
by aggressively stepping
out along strike as well as
infilling known area of
mineralization.

Arrow is open in most


directions and at depth.

New northeast extension


discovered in A2 and A3
shears representing large
potential resource growth
areas.
26
Unlocking New High Grade Zones in A2

Winter 2017 drilling unlocking


new high grade zones within
A2 shear to northeast in
previously untested area.

Highly prospective for material


future resource growth
potential in the A2 and A2
High Grade Domain.

Hole AR-17-119c1 drilled 120


m northeast of maiden A2
resource grade shell and
intersected 21.5 m of total
composite mineralization
including 1.15 m of off-scale.
27
Up-Dip Northeast Extension of A3

Winter 2017 drilling has


already intersected
most intense
mineralization
encountered in A3
shear to date.

Building on Inferred A3
High Grade Domain of
28.2Mlbs grading
8.74% U3O8 contained
within 150Kt.

Up-dip northeast
extension of A3
represents large
potential future
resource growth area.

Infilling of A3 continues
to confirm continuity
as well as expand area
of mineralization.
28
South Arrow Discovery
Large and robust
uraniferous alteration
system is present at
South Arrow.

Mineralization occurs
within at least three
stacked high strain or
sheared intervals, which is
a common characteristic
of the Arrow Deposit.

Similarly to Arrow, the


hydrothermal alteration
is widespread, which
suggests a strong
mineralizing event has
occurred. Dravite and illite
breccias are observed at
the Arrow Deposit and the
South Arrow zone.
29
South Arrow Discovery

Discovery hole AR-17-151c1


intersected 7.0 m of total
composite mineralization
including 0.45 m of off-scale
radioactivity marked by narrow
massive pitchblende veining.

Follow-up hole AR-17-151c2


which targeted mineralization 25
m down-dip from the discovery
hole, intersected 7.0 m of total
composite mineralization
including 0.2 m of off-scale
radioactivity.

Currently aggressively and


systematically drilling at this
target as part of the summer
2017 campaign.
30
31
The Next 18 Months

H2/2017 2018

Complete Summer Update resource


2017 drill program. model.
--- ---
Advanced site Continue advanced
characterization, engineering and
baseline monitoring, environmental
geotechnical, baseline studies.
hydrogeological and ---
metallurgical studies. Publish maiden Pre-
--- Feasibility Study.
Compile 2017 assays ---
for updating resource Submit Project
model. Proposal to EIA Board.

Well funded: Recent US$110M investment by CEF Holdings.


32

Local Prosperity Programs


33
Responsible Development

NexGen is committed to building strong relationships with


local Saskatchewan communities.

Some of our programs include:

Camp Quest: Mining Rocks


Earth Science Program.
La Loche grade 4 field trips.
Camp dog fostering program.
Student apprenticeship
programs.
Strict focus on the
environment, community and
safety.
34

Contact Information

For more information please visit: www.nexgenenergy.ca or contact:

Travis McPherson Vice President Corporate Development


Phone: +1.604.428.4112
Email: tmcpherson@nxe-energy.ca
35

Appendices
36
Capital Structure*
Shares Issued 338,341,464

Fully Diluted 370,980,910

Cash ~C$200 million

Insider Ownership 5%

Shareholders CEF Holdings (Li Ka-shing)


1832 Asset Management
Blackrock (UK)
CI Investments
Connor Clark & Lunn
Global X Management
Rosseau Asset Management
Segra Capital Management LLC
CQS Management Ltd.
Haywood Securities
Options 32,639,446
CEF Conversion 48,083,337
*Share Structure and Cash as at July 31, 2017
37
Management

Name Experience

Leigh Curyer Chartered Accountant with +20 years experience and ex-CFO of Southern
CEO Cross Resources (now Uranium One)
Managed exploration, feasibility and permitting of Honeymoon Uranium
Project in South Australia
Ex-Head Corporate Development at Accord Nuclear Resources Management
assessing global uranium assets for First Reserve International

Garrett Ainsworth BSc, Professional geologist and former Project Manager for Alpha Minerals-
PGeo VP Exploration Fission 50/50 JV on Patterson Lake South project from 2007 to 2013
Staked claims, boulder prospecting and led drill programs that led to
discovery of R00E, R390E and R780E zones
Won AMEBC 2014 Colin Spence Award for discovery of Patterson Lake South

Travis McPherson Ex-Head Corporate Development for TSX-listed gold producer


VP Corporate M&A, debt and equity, permitting, budgeting and corporate strategy
Development experience
38
Management (Continued)

Grace Marosits Chartered Accountant with public practice and corporate experience
CFO including Deloitte, Westcoast Energy and Ballard Power

Joanna Cameron Lawyer with +20 years experience in exploration and mining
VP Legal Ex-partner Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
39
Board of Directors

Name Experience

Christopher McFadden Lawyer with +20 years experience in exploration and mining
(Chairman) Commercial General Manger for Rio Tinto

Richard Patricio Lawyer with +15 years capital markets experience


CEO and President of Mega Uranium

Trevor J. Thiele Chartered Accountant with +30 years experience in capital markets including
CFO of major Australian Agribusinesses (Elders and Viterra)

Craig Parry Geologist ex-Rio Tinto, Oxiana Limited and G-Resources


Founding member of Tigers Realm Group

Warren Gilman Chairman and CEO, CEF Holdings Ltd.


Mining engineer with +26 years experience running CIBC mining investment
bank
Dr. Mark ODea Geologist with +20 years experience in discoveries, development, mining and
M&A
Co-founder of Fronteer, Aurora, True Gold Mining sold for $2.3Bn, $260M and
$240M, respectively
40
Advisory Board

Charles Scorer +25 years commercial and operational experience in nuclear fuel market
(Uranium Marketing) Founder and ex-CEO of Nufcor International

Andrew Browne Uranium geologist with +43 years experience


(Technical Advisory Head) Key member of exploration teams at Jabiluka and Ranger 1 No. 3 Deeps
41
End Notes
Technical Disclosure
The scientific and technical information in this presentation with respect to the PEA has been reviewed and approved by David Robson, P.Eng., M.B.A. and Jason Cox, P.Eng. of RPA, each of whom is a qualified
person under National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). All other scientific and technical information in this presentation has been approved by Mr. Garrett Ainsworth,
P.Geo., Vice President Exploration & Development for NexGen. Mr. Ainsworth is a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101 and has verified the sampling, analytical, and test data underlying the information or
opinions contained herein by reviewing original data certificates and monitoring all of the data collection protocols.

Inferred Mineral Resources in PEA


The PEA is preliminary in nature and 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. There is no certainty that PEA results will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Technical Report
The mineral resource estimate referred to herein was announced by the Company on March 6th, 2017, and has an effective date of December 20, 2016. For details of the Rook I Project including the quality assurance
program and quality control measures applied and key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate the mineral resource set forth herein please refer to the technical report entitled Technical Report on
the Rook 1 Property, Saskatchewan, Canada dated effective March 31, 2017 (the Rook 1 Technical Report). The Rook I Technical Report is available on NexGens issuer profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.
A new technical report in respect of the PEA, that will supersede the Rook 1 Technical Report, will be filed on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and EDGAR (www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml) within 45 days of the news release
announcing the results of the PEA (by mid-September 2017).

SEC Standards
Estimates of mineralization and other technical information included or referenced in this presentation have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101. The definitions of proven and probable mineral reserves
used in NI 43-101 differ from the definitions in SEC Industry Guide 7. Under SEC Industry Guide 7 standards, a final or bankable feasibility study is required to report reserves, the three-year historical average price
is used in any reserve or cash flow analysis to designate reserves and the primary environmental analysis or report must be filed with the appropriate governmental authority. As a result, the reserves reported by the
Company in accordance with NI 43-101 may not qualify as reserves under SEC standards. In addition, the terms mineral resource, measured mineral resource, indicated mineral resource and inferred mineral
resource are defined in and required to be disclosed by NI 43-101; however, these terms are not defined terms under SEC Industry Guide 7 and normally are not permitted to be used in reports and registration
statements filed with the SEC. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of the mineral deposits in these
categories will ever be converted into reserves. Inferred mineral resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be
assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian securities laws, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or
pre-feasibility studies, except in rare cases. Additionally, disclosure of contained ounces in a resource is permitted disclosure under Canadian securities laws; however, the SEC normally only permits issuers to report
mineralization that does not constitute reserves by SEC standards as in place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measurements. Accordingly, information contained or referenced in this presentation
containing descriptions of the Companys mineral deposits may not be comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of United States federal
securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Non-IFRS Measures

This presentation refers to cash costs, which measurement has no standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. These measurements are intended
to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.