Kemess Site VisitAugust 25, 2016

Forward-Looking Statements

2

Cautionary Statement This presentation contains certain information that constitutes “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements” as defined under Canadian and U.S. securities laws. All statements inthis presentation, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. The words “expect”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “contemplate”, “may”, “could”, “will”, “intend”, “estimate”,“forecast”, “target”, “budget”, “schedule” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this presentation include, without limitation, information as toour strategy, projected gold production from the Young-Davidson, Hemlo – Williams, Eagle River, Fosterville and Stawell mines, which are not owned by the Company, project timelines, the planned2% net smelter return royalty on future production from the Kemess Underground mine, projected exploration results, resource and reserve estimates, projected production and costs of the KemessUnderground mine, other statements that express our expectations or estimates of future performance, value growth, value creation and shareholder returns, the success of exploration activities,mineral inventory including the Company’s ability to delineate additional resources and reserves as a result of such programs, mineral reserves and mineral resources and anticipated grades,exploration expenditures, costs and timing of any future development, costs and timing of future exploration and the presence of and continuity of metals at Kemess East at modeled grades.Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of factors and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by management at the time of making such statements, are inherentlysubject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in theforward-looking statements. Such factors and assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements in this presentation include, but are not limited to: changes to current estimates of mineralreserves and resources; fluctuations in the price of gold and copper; changes in foreign exchange rates (particularly the Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar); performance of the Young-Davidson, Hemlo –Williams, Eagle River, Fosterville and Stawell mines, which may impact the future cash flows associated with the Company’s royalty holdings; the impact of inflation; employee relations; litigation;uncertainty with the Company’s ability to secure capital to execute its business plans; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development, including the risks of obtaining necessarylicenses, permits, authorizations and/or approvals from the appropriate regulatory authorities for the Kemess Underground project; contests over title to properties; changes in national and localgovernment legislation in Canada and other jurisdictions in which the Company does or may carry on business in the future; risk of loss due to sabotage and civil disturbances; the impact of globalliquidity and credit availability and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows; as well as business opportunities that may be pursued by the Company.Actual results and developments are likely to differ, and may differ materially, from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. Such statements arebased on a number of assumptions, including those noted elsewhere in this document, which may prove to be incorrect. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees offuture performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by these cautionary statements.There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements or information will prove to be accurate, accordingly, investors should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements orinformation contained herein. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events orotherwise, except as required by applicable law.

Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Measured, Indicated and Inferred ResourcesThis presentation uses the terms "measured", "indicated" and "inferred” resources. We advise investors that while those terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. “Inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot beassumed that all or any part of an inferred resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility orother economic studies. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. United Statesinvestors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.Qualified Person as Defined by National Instrument 43-101John Fitzgerald, Chief Operating Officer for AuRico Metals Inc. has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained within this presentation. Mr. Fitzgerald is a “QualifiedPerson” as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

• Introduction and General Overview• Kemess Overview• Updated Feasibility Study Highlights• Environment Assessment Application & Community • Exploration – Kemess East

3

Table of Contents

Royalty Portfolio Kemess Gold – Copper Project Young-Davidson ramp-up progressing well Fosterville reserves 34% Hemlo reserves 12% Eagle River reserves 13% Stawell resources 14%Q2/16: AMI announced 4th

consecutive quarter of higher royalty revenue Increased annual revenue guidance to $7.7M - $8.1M

Resource update (Moz AuE):

Positive feasibility update:

Delineation of high grade core at Kemess East (upside) Environmental Assessment Application undergoing 180-day review by BC EAO

3.2 4.0 3.2

AuRico Overview

4

After-tax NPV (5%)1C$421M

P&P M&I Inferred

(Reserves Only)

IRR of 15.4%

1 Based on price assumptions of $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu and C$/US$ 0.75

Property Locations

5

All properties located in stable, desirable mining jurisdictionsDevelopment Property

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

KEMESS (100%)British Columbia, Canada

YOUNG-DAVIDSON (1.5% NSR)Ontario, Canada STAWELL (1% NSR)Victoria, AustraliaFOSTERVILLE (2% NSR)Victoria, AustraliaRoyalty

LEVIATHAN (1% NSR)Victoria, Australia

KEMESS UG(Potential Royalty or Stream) British Columbia, Canada

HEMLO – WILLIAMS (0.25% NSR)Ontario, CanadaHEMLO – DAVID BELL (1.5% NSR)Ontario, CanadaEAGLE RIVER (0.5% NSR)Ontario, Canada

Actively pursuing accretive opportunities to grow royalty portfolio

Producing Royalty

Undervalued…

6

Valuation vs. Developer Peers (C$M Mkt. Cap.)

P/NAV vs. Development Peers

Source: Peers per CIBC (August 15, 2016) – Analyst consensus Limited value being ascribed to Kemess given royalty + cash NAV of >C$100M

0200400600800

1,000

Seabridge Lundin Gold Continental Kaminak* Belo Sun Dalradian Polymet Victoria Sabina NGEx AuRicoMetals

YTD Return51%51%

191% 82% 142% 252% (9%) 219% 30% 46% 50%

1.5 x1.0 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.8 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.4 x 0.3 x

0.0 x0.5 x1.0 x1.5 x2.0 x

TMAC Victoria Lundin Gold GoldDevelopers Dalradian Exeter Lydian Sabina CopperDevelopers Continental NGEx Polymet NevadaCopper

P/NAV

* Note: Kaminak has been acquired by Goldcorp

AMI trading at 0.36x Kemess-only NAV (excl. royalties & cash)1

1 Kemess NAV based on Feasibility Study results using consensus prices, resulting in an NAV of $421M

7The Kemess Underground Project is 100% owned by AuRico Metals

Kemess Overview

• Located in north-central British Columbia• Approximately 250 km north of Smithers, and ~430 km northwest of Prince George• Hosts past Kemess South (KS) mine, KemessUnderground (KUG) & Kemess East (KE)• KUG ~6.5 km north of existing KS processing plant, and KE deposit ~1 km east of KUGKS Mine - Successful Operating Track Record• Produced between 1998 - 2011 • Comprised a large open pit and 52ktpd plant• Produced ~3.0Moz Au, and 750M lbs Cu• Production ceased due to depletion of open pit mineral reserves

8

Location & General Overview

9

Kemess Existing Infrastructure

Approximately C$1 Billion of Infrastructure is Already in Place

• Kemess South open pit mine operated from 1998 to 2011• Tailings storage facility & waste rock dump• Currently on care & maintenance (forecast of $4.5M for 2016)

• Existing infrastructure includes:• Process plant (25,000 tpd)• Camp (7 x 40-person bunk house units, kitchen, potable water facility, sewage facility)• Powerline (380 km, 230 kV-power line step-down transformers, backup diesel generators)• Other (admin building, workshop, warehouse, 1,500m all weather air strip, 400 km access road)

10

Kemess Site Plan

The KUG mine will be located ~6.5 km north of the existing KS site

11

Kemess Expected Surface Usage Comparison of Kemess North vs. KUG

Surface area impact for KUG is expected to amount to only ~5% of the total area previously impacted

KUG Surface Disturbance

12

Updated Feasibility Study Highlights

March 2016 - Positive Feasibility Study Update Announced for Kemess UG

Kemess UG – Feasibility Study Update

13

• Meaningful production: 238Koz Gold Equivalent (AuE) annually for first 5 years, 207Koz AuE over life of mine (LOM) (12 years)• Low cost: All-in Sustaining Costs2 per AuE of US$682/oz for first 5 years, US$718/oz LOM• Solid economics:

• After-tax NPV (5%) of C$421M and IRR of 15.4% assuming $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu, and a C$/US$ of 0.75• Pre-commercial production capital3 of C$603M (US$452M)

• Capital reduction opportunity exists by leasing all or a portion of the C$86M in underground mobile equipment purchases• Low risk: Project infrastructure is already in place (processing facility, grid power, access road, camp, admin and maintenance facilities, etc.)• Significant upside: Large (246Mt) M&I resource base (including 107Mt of reserves) situated directly adjacent to the extraction level (of the planned KUG panel cave)

• Potential further upside from Kemess East (including high grade core) – which remains open in several directions

14

Reserves & ResourcesClassification Quantity Grade Contained Metal

Gold (g/t) Copper (%) Silver (g/t) Gold (koz) Copper (klbs) Silver (koz)Proven and Probable

Proven - - - - - - -Probable 107,381 0.54 0.27 1.99 1,868 629,595 6,878Total P&P 107,381 0.54 0.27 1.99 1,868 629,595 6,878Measured - - - - - - -Indicated 246,400 0.42 0.22 1.75 3,328 1,195,300 13,866Total M&I 246,400 0.42 0.22 1.75 3,328 1,195,300 13,866

InferredTotal Inferred 21,600 0.40 0.22 1.70 277 104,700 1,179

Kemess Underground

Reserves and Resources (all categories) of +10 Moz Au Equivalent1 Property WideSource: Technical Report May 2016. All Reserves and Resources dated as at December 31, 2015.

Kemess EastClassification Quantity Grade Contained Metal

Gold (g/t) Copper (%) Silver (g/t) Gold (koz) Copper (klbs) Silver (koz)Measured - - - - - - -Indicated 39,270 0.50 0.40 1.99 627 344,000 2,512Total M&I 39,270 0.50 0.40 1.99 627 344,000 2,512

InferredTotal Inferred 109,670 0.38 0.37 1.99 1,331 888,000 6,994

1AuE calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.50/lb Cu

15

Proposed Mining Process

Panel caving underground mining minimizes waste rock1. Ore crushed underground2. Placed on conveyor to surface3. Process plant ~25,000 tpd4. Tailings deposited into Kemess South mined out pit5. Au-Cu concentrate trucked to Mackenzie6. Transferred to rail and sent to port/smelters

16

Kemess UndergroundCross Section showing Decline, Underground Workings & Panel Cave

• KUG reserve situated approximately 200 to 550 m below surface• Mine will be accessed and supported by a triple decline system comprising access, ore conveying and intake air declines• Total LOM development requirements are estimated to be 47,750m lateral and 2,200m vertical development (all lateral development assumed to be by owner crews)• Total 2,250t of ore per metre of lateral development results from this mine design, representing a very high development efficiency compared to other UG mining methods“While all mining projects have residual technical uncertainties, the KUG Project is considered to be relatively low risk for a caving project in terms of key mining-related risks including production ramp-up, drawpointstability, subsidence and mudrush.” - SRK Consulting

17

East Cirque Above Orebody• Ore fed from undercut level to extraction level via 582 total drawpoints• Avg production rate of 25ktpd (9Mtpa)• Caving initiated in highest value ore at east end of KUG

• Ore delivered to one of four primary jaw crushers located on extraction level• Following crushing, ore placed on 3.2km underground conveyor and then on a 4.9km surface conveyor to process plant

18

Simplified Process Flowsheet• Processing of 9Mtpa using one of the two grinding circuits used to process KS ore• Tailings pumped and stored in the KS open pit with minimum capacity of 107.4Mt ore treated• Testwork resulted in estimated recoveries of 91% Cu, 72% Au and 65% Ag• Produces clean concentrate with an estimated 22% copper content and payable gold/silver

Kemess: Production and Costs

19

Low Cost Mining

Avg LOM production of 106koz Au, 47M lbs Cu, 207koz AuE Total LOM cash costs of US$639 and AISC of US$718 per AuE

AISC of US$682/oz over first 5 years Caving initiated in the highest value ore Low ‘break-even’ in early years allows for rapid debt repayment Payback of 3.3 years (consensus pricing case)

050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000

0100200300400500600700800900

-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Annual Gold Equivalent Production vs. USD AISC

Gold Equivalent Production AISC(USD)

$/oz Ounces

20

Operating Expenses• Average life of mine operating costs estimated at C$14.27/t ore• Labour significant component comprising: 53% of mining, 17% of processing and 26% G&A• Other significant costs include consumables (37% of processing), electricity (32% of processing)and flights and camp (28% of G&A)• Estimated 85% of operating costs will be C$ denominated, with the other 15% largely due to equipment spares, consumables and fuel

Item C$/t oreMining $5.39Processing Plant $5.69Water Treatment $0.26G&A $2.93Total $14.27

Mining38%

Processing 40%

G&A20%

Water Treatment2%

Opex Breakdown

Kemess: Initial Capital

21

KemessAdvantages C$603M (US$452M) in pre-commercial production capex “Low risk” capex given infrastructure in place; Proven logistics 87% of capital expenditures are C$ denominated Capex is heavily weighted to final 2 years prior to commercial prod’n Project financing opportunity (marketable clean concentrate)

22

Capital Expenditures• Majority of capex pertains to underground mining capital (lower risk of capital overruns) • Opportunity to reduce capex through equipment leasing (C$86M or 19% of total capital)

Item To First Production (C$ M) Additional Capital to Commercial Production (C$ M) Total Capital to Commercial Production (C$ M)Mining 205 61 266Processing 31 7 38Site Service G&A 13 0 13Conveyor 40 0 40Electrical 18 1 19U/G Ventilation 10 0 10Access Corridor 43 0 43Water Treatment 13 0 13Tailings Storage & Pipeline 7 1 8Total Capital 380 70 450Capitalised pre-prod’n opex 144 94 238Capitalised pre-prod’nrevenue - (85) (85)Total Capital (C$ M) 524 79 603Total Capital (US$ M) US$393 US$59 US$ 452

Kemess: Low Capital Intensity

23

• Potential to add additional low-cost ounces at KUG and Kemess EastSource: Canaccord Genuity (March 23, 2016).

24

Waste Rock, Tailings Storage & Water Management• Old Kemess South Pit will be the Kemess Underground Tailings Storage Facility (KUG TSF)• All waste rock (~3Mt) & tailings (~107Mt) produced through 12-yr mine life will be stored underwater in the facility• East rim will be raised 25m to accommodate volume• Mine water will be pumped to the KUG TSF during operations• Process water will be sourced from the KUG TSF

25

Economic Summary

Base CaseAssumptions:

Gold Price (US$/oz) $1,150 $1,250 $1,250 $1,350 $1,450Copper Price (US$/lb) $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.50Silver Price (US$/oz) $16.00 $16.00 $18.00 $16.00 $16.00Exchange Rate (C$/US$) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Outputs:Pre-Tax Net Cash Flow (C$M) $596 $1,102 $1,453 $1,607 $2,112After-Tax Net Cash Flow (C$M) $426 $746 $969 $1,067 $1,388After-Tax NPV 5% (C$ M) $94 $289 $421 $479 $669After-Tax IRR 8.0% 12.6% 15.4% 16.5% 19.9%Payback Period (years) 5.4 3.9 3.3 3.1 2.6

• Total LOM production of 1.4Moz gold, 573Mlb copper and 4.5Moz silver• By-product AISC over first five years of US$201/oz gold• After tax NPV5% of $421M with IRR of +15%• Study based only on 107Mt out of Indicated Resource base for KUG of 246Mt• Further potential at Kemess East represents significant upside opportunity

Kemess Advantages & Alternatives

KemessAdvantages

Attractive economics “2/3rds built” (~C$1B of infrastructure) “Low risk” capex (mostly UG dev’t) Proven as past producer (‘98 – ’11) Advanced stage

~55/45 Au/Cu split BC government very supportive Fully unencumbered Clean concentrate

26

Smelter (offtake-linked) FinancingJoint Venture / Earn-in Project Financing

Royalty / Stream Private Equity

27

Environment Assessment & Community

Environmental Permitting

28

• The KUG Project requires both Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessments before it can proceed. • This is being carried out through a Substituted Environmental Assessment Process that is managed by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office on behalf of both the Province and the Federal Governments. • The process is now entering its final stage and completion is anticipated in Q1/2017

February 2014 Project Description submitted to the BC Environmental office (BCEAO) and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)April 2014 Determination from BCEAO and CEAA that an Environmental Assessment is requiredMay 2014 – January 2016 Preparation and finalization of Applicant Information Requirements (Terms of Reference) for what information will be required for the Environmental ApplicationMay 2016 Submission of Environmental Application

Q2 2016 – Q1 2017 180 day Review of EA by First Nations, Regulators and the Public. Final Assessment report by BCEAO and CEAAEarly 2017 Minister’s decision by both the provincial and federal Ministers of the Environment

Following a successful EA The KUG project will be required to obtain a number of provincial and federal licenses/permits

Environmental Assessment Process

29

• The substituted assessment process consists of three phases: (i) Subsitution Decision; (ii) Pre-application & Application Review; (iii) Decision Process

• The Environmental Assessment Office initiated the 180 day EA review period on May 11/’16• In July initial questions & comments from working group members, the general public and First Nations partners had been received. AMI has provided 100% of responses• Towards end of review period, the EAO will conclude assessment and submit report to the provincial and federal ministers for their respective decisions which are expected in Q1/17

Working With First Nations

30

Which First Nations will be affected by the Project?• Two Aboriginal traditional territories overlap the Kemess Project location: Tsay Keh Dene and Takla Lake• One Aboriginal traditional territory is adjacent & downstream from the project location: Kwadacha• These three nations identify themselves as the Tse Keh Nay (‘TKN’)

Building Relationships with Tse Keh Nay

31

• Signed an Interim Measures Agreement (IMA) with TKN in June 2012• IMA is a cooperative agreement covering advanced exploration with respect to the KUG Project• Key aspects include a Senior Implementation Committee, comprised of the Chiefs of Kwadacha, Tsay Keh Dene and Takla Lake and AuRico management• Committee oversees the implementation of the IMA and meets on a monthly basis

• An Environmental Management Committee (EMC), comprised of representatives from each TKN nation and AuRico, also meets regularly to communicate and coordinate the proposed environmental studies to be undertaken and provide general project updates• In June 2014, signed an Environmental Assessment Conduct Agreement with TKN which outlines the collaborative approach to the EA process• AMI also supports a technical coordinator who coordinates with the TKN leadership, and the EMC committee while reviewing technical information (past, baseline and ongoing)• Negotiation of an Impact Benefits Agreement (IBA) currently underway and would represent a major milestone for the Project

Social and Economic Benefits

32

Community Investment• 40% of the Kemess South mine’s expenditures and employment were in Prince George, Mackenzie, Fort St. James, Bulkely Valley and Smithers• It is expected that the KUG project will have a similar economic impact.Employment• Up to 475 jobs will be created during the five year construction and 12 year production periods. Employment will continue throughout the closure phase.

33

Exploration – Kemess East

Kemess East – Higher Grade Discovery

34~51Mt in high grade core of Kemess East with Cu grade 69% higher and Au grade 23% higher than KUG Reserves

K UG K East

K South

• The Kemess East (KE) deposit is located ~1km east of KUG

Kemess East Outlook

35

• In March 2016, AMI announced high grade core to KE deposit• High grade core Indicated Resource estimated at 19.2Mt at 0.47% Cu and 0.72 g/t Au

• Included within overall Indicated Resource of 39.2Mt at 0.40% Cu and 0.50 g/t Au• High grade core Inferred Resource estimated at 31.7Mt at 0.45% Cu and 0.63 g/t Au

• Included within overall Inferred Resource of 109.6Mt at 0.37% Cu and 0.38 g/t Au• High grade core associated with strong potassicalteration zone and is open to west, north and south as is overall depositIncreased Exploration Budget for 2016• AMI increased exploration budget from $1.7M to $4.4M (raised funds from flow-through financings)• Three drills currently on site focused on infilling and expanding high grade core

Thank You

36

Appendix: Other Notable Caving Operations & Projects

37Source: The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (2014 SOMP Annual Meeting)

Australia11%

Asia21%

North America41%

South America7%

Europe1%Africa19%

Cave Mining by Continent

Unless otherwise indicated, AuRico Metals has prepared the technical information in this presentation (“Technical Information”) based on informationcontained in the technical report and news releases (collectively the “Disclosure Documents”) available under AuRico Metals’ company profile on SEDAR atwww.sedar.com. Each Disclosure Document was prepared by or under the supervision of a qualified person (a “Qualified Person”) as defined in NationalInstrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects of the Canadian Securities Administrators (“NI 43-101”). For readers to fully understandthe information in this presentation, they should read the Technical Report (available on www.sedar.com) in its entirety, including all qualifications,assumptions and exclusions that relate to the information set out in this presentation which qualifies the Technical Information. Readers are advised thatmineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The Disclosure Documents are each intended to be read as awhole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The Technical Information is subject to the assumptions and qualifications containedin the Disclosure Documents.Notes:Slides 4, 14, 15 & 20: AuE calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.50/lb CuSlides 20 & 26: All-in sustaining costs (“AISC”) is a non-GAAP measures that does not have a standardized meaningKUG Resources:• Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves; only the mineral reserve portion has demonstrated economic viability.• Resources stated are contained within a “reasonable prospects for economic extraction solid” above C$15.00/t NSR cut-off. A variable specific gravity value was assigned by domain for all model blocks. • NSR calculation is based on assumed copper, gold and silver prices of US$3.20/lb, US$1,275/oz and US$21.00/oz, respectively. • Mineral resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to rounding. • Contained metals are in situ and undiluted, and do not include metallurgical recovery losses.• SRK completed an 85% audit of the Kemess underground resource database to verify that analytical results have been entered correctly into the drill hole database used to prepare the 2015 mineral resource estimate. All samples were checked against their assay certificates via sample number. The audit showed no significant errors from the resource area regarding the recording of tabulated analytical data.KE Resources:• NSR cut-off value of C$17.3/t was used to define indicated and inferred resources within a solid representing a potential block or panel cave volume.• The potential cave volume, was derived using Geovia’s Footprint Finder software, an industry standard cave optimization software. The final resource solid was subject to manual editing to provide a shape that meets the “reasonable prospects” criteria given the focus on cave mining potential. External dilution is not included.• NSR calculation assumed US$3.20/lb copper, US$1,275/oz gold and US$21.0/oz silver prices; and C$/US$ exchange rate of 0.76.• NSR calculation assumed metallurgical recoveries or 91% copper, 72% gold and 65% silver; as well as a 22% copper grade for concentrate. Molybdenum was excluded from the NSR calculation.• A metallurgical testwork program on Kemess East core is planned for 2016.• Details of the Sample Preparation and Quality Assurance and Quality Control are presented in AuRico Metals’ Nov 3, 2105 press release reporting on the results of the Company’s 2015 drill program.• Resources were generated from 71 holes drilled at Kemess East in 2006, 2007, 2013, 2014 and 2015.• Exploration activities at the Kemess East deposit have been conducted under the supervision of Wade Barnes, PGeo, Kemess Project Geologist, for AuRico Metals. Mr. Barnes is a “Qualified Person” as defined by NI 43-101.• Mineral Resources were prepared under the supervision of Chad Yuhasz, SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Mr. Yuhasz is a “Qualified Person” as defined by NI 43-101.

38

NI 43-101 Compliance