Kemess Site Visit

September 7, 2017

A Compelling Canadian Development Opportunity

Supported by High Quality Royalties

Forward-Looking Statements

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, and Fosterville mines, which are not owned by the Company, project timelines, resource and reserveestimates, projected production and costs of the Kemess Underground Project and Kemess East Project, other statements that express our expectations or estimates of future performance, valuegrowth, 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 suchprograms, mineral reserves and mineral resources and anticipated grades, exploration expenditures, costs and timing of any future development, costs and timing of future exploration , the presenceof and continuity of metals at Kemess East at modeled grades, as well as expectations relating the assets acquired through the acquisition of Kiska Metals.

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, and Fosterville mines, which may impact the future cash flows associated with the Company’s royalty holdings; the impact of inflation; employee relations; litigation; uncertaintywith 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 necessary licenses, permits,authorizations and/or approvals from the appropriate regulatory authorities for the Kemess Underground project; contests over title to properties; changes in national and local government legislationin 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 global liquidity and creditavailability 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 Resources

This 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 43-101

John 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.

Note: All amounts are in US dollars unless otherwise indicated.

2

1. AuRico Overview

2. Kemess Overview

3. Kemess Underground (KUG) – Feasibility Study Highlights

4. Kemess East (KE) – PEA Highlights & Exploration

5. Kemess Valuation & Benchmarking

6. Q&A

Table of Contents

3

1. AuRico Overview

Compelling Opportunity

✓ Strong balance sheet (C$28M cash2) with no debt

✓ Unique risk – reward dynamic through combination of stand-out development project with royalties

✓ Attractive valuation

✓ Strong management and technical team

Kemess (100% Owned)

✓ Advanced-stage, Brownfields Au/Cu project in British Columbia

✓ Kemess Underground (KUG) – FS (’16), EA and IBA Approved (‘17)

✓ Kemess East (KE) – PEA (‘17); KE drilling ongoing, Kemess integrated study to be completed in 2018

✓ Positive Economics – Supported by ~C$1B of infrastructure in place

✓ +12Moz Gold Equivalent Ounces (all resource categories)1

Royalty Portfolio

✓ Portfolio of high quality NSR royalties in Canada and Australia

✓ 2017E Royalty revenue of C$14.0 – C$14.7M (US$10.5 - $11.0M)

✓ 21 royalties + 6 wholly-owned properties with royalty creation potential

✓ NSR Royalties incl. Young-Davidson (1.5%), Fosterville (2%), Hemlo (0.25%), Eagle River (0.5%), East Timmins (0.5%), Boulevard (1%), GJ (1%)

4

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Jul - 15 Oct - 15Jan - 16Apr - 16 Jul - 16 Oct - 16Jan - 17Apr - 17 Jul - 17

AMI Share Price Since Inception in July 2015

AMI (C$/shr)

Gold Price US$/oz (indexed to AMI)

GDXJ - Jr. Gold Miner ETF (indexed to AMI)

Track-Record of Adding Value

Kemess:

✓ Receipt of Environmental Assessment Certificate for Kemess Underground (KUG)

✓ Signed Impact Benefits Agreement for KUG

✓ Announced positive PEA results on Kemess East

✓ 188% increase in Indicated resource for Kemess East

✓ Submitted permit applications for KUG

Royalties:

✓ 2017E royalty revenue guidance since beginning of year has increased by 31% to C$14.0 – C$14.7M

✓ Increase in Production Guidance: Fosterville + 79%; YD + 18-24%; Eagle River + 12%-22%

✓ Increase in P&P Reserves: Fosterville +110%; Hemlo+73%; Eagle River +15%

✓ Acquisition of Kiska Metals completed

Key Developments – 2017 Year to Date AuRico Relative Performance

5

+136%

+47%

+12%

Capital Structure (TSX – AMI)

Share Price (as of September 1, 2017) C$1.37

Shares Outstanding 162M

Market Capitalization C$222M

Cash (as of June 30, 2017) C$28M

Total Debt (as of June 30, 2017) Zero

Available credit facility US$15M

Management Team

Chris Richter President & CEO

John Fitzgerald Chief Operating Officer

David Flahr VP Finance

John Miniotis VP Corporate Development

Grant Ewing VP Exploration

Sean Masse Mining Manager

Mike Padula Construction Manager

Harold Bent Director, Environment

Wade Barnes Exploration Manager

Board of Directors

Richard Colterjohn (Chair) - Former CEO of Centenario Copper

John McCluskey - CEO of Alamos Gold

Scott Perry - CEO of Centerra Gold

Janice Stairs - Independent Director

Joseph Spiteri - Independent Mining Consultant

Anne Day - SVP IR, Richmont Mines

Anthony Garson - Extensive career in Finance

Chris Richter - CEO of AuRico Metals

Major Shareholders1

Alamos Gold 9%

Donald Smith & Company 8%

Van Eck Associates 6%

Tocqueville Asset Management 5%

AMI Management & Directors 4%

Market Overview

Analyst Coverage Target Prices

Implied Return

Laurentian Bank (Ryan Hanley) C$2.00 46%

Macquarie (Michael Siperco) C$2.00 46%

National Bank (Shane Nagle) C$1.80 31%

Paradigm Capital (Don MacLean) C$1.70 24%

Red Cloud (Derek Macpherson) NA NA

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2015A* 2016A 2017E

$U

S M

Fosterville Young Davidson Other

$65

$81

$99

3

8

21

0

5

10

15

20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

Jul-15 16-Dec Current

# o

f ro

yalt

ies

US$

M

NAV ($US M) (Left Scale) Number of royalties

High Quality Royalty Portfolio – Summary

Producing Royalties NSR Rate Operator

Young-Davidson 1.50%

Fosterville 2.00%

Hemlo 0.25%

Eagle River 0.50%

Producing Royalties - High Quality & Long Life

Increase in Annual Royalty Revenues (US$ M) Increase in Analyst Net Asset Valuation

▪ Value of royalty portfolio has increased significantly: Reserves and Production increasing at existing royalties and have completed several accretive royalty acquisitions

* Royalty revenue from Young-Davidson commenced on July 2, 2015

+156% +52%

7

(C$132)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Eagle River

Hemlo

Fosterville

Young-Davidson

Producing Royalty Mineral Inventory (years)1

P&P

M&I

Inferred

The Kemess Underground Project is 100% owned by AuRico Metals

2. Kemess Overview

Processing plant(capacity of 52ktpd)

Admin-Workshop-Warehouse Complex

Camp (accommodations for +300)

KUG tailings storage facility

KUG

8

Kemess Underground Project – Key Technical Team

John Fitzgerald Chief Operating Officer

• Over 27 years experience• Director of Mining at AuRico Gold and Northgate Minerals – part of Young Davidson

development team• Significant block/panel caving experience gained in various roles at Rio Tinto and De Beers• Former management roles at Barrick Gold, Scotia Capital and successful independent

consultant

Sean Masse Mining Project Manager

• Over 16 years experience• Senior member of team that successfully brought New Gold's New Afton panel cave mine

into production• Former superintendent and mine manager at New Afton• Most recently working to build Cementation Canada's business in Western Canada

Mike Padula SurfaceConstruction Project Manager

• Over 29 years experience • Project Manager for Victoria Gold’s Eagle Gold Project in central Yukon • Manager of mining wastes and water for MMG Limited's Izok Corridor Project in Nunavut• Part of senior management group for both AMEC Americas and De Beers Canada which

advanced Snap Lake Diamond Project to construction

Harold Bent DirectorEnvironment

• Over 25 years experience • Working at Kemess since 1999 with progressive responsibilities• Responsible for all environmental, regulatory compliance and reclamation activities

Wade Barnes Project Geologist • Over 13 years experience• Working at Kemess since 2010• Recipient of H.H. “Spud” Huestis Award in 2016

Claudette Gouger

First Nations Liaison

• Over 22 years experience• Community Manager at New Gold’s Blackwater Project• Extensive experience building and maintaining collaborative partnerships with local,

national, international and indigenous stakeholders

Experienced Project Management Team

9

• Located in north-central British Columbia

• Approximately 250 km north of Smithers, and ~430 km northwest of Prince George

• 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 KUG

Location & General Overview

10

Kemess Overview

Kemess Underground (Feasibility – 2016)

▪ Reserves of 3.5Moz AuE1 (1.9Moz Au and 0.6Blbs Cu)▪ NPV (5%, after tax) of C$421M and IRR of 15.4%2

▪ LOM of 12 years at 207Koz AuE/yr at AISC of $718/oz▪ Environmental Approvals received▪ Permitting and review of financing alternatives ongoing Unique development opportunity

Kemess South (Past Producer: 1998 – 2011)

▪ ~C$1B of infrastructure in place (including processing facility, grid power, road, maintenance shop, etc.)

▪ Past production of 3Moz Au and 750Mlbs Cu Brownfields opportunity significantly reduces risk

Kemess East (PEA – May 2017)

▪ M&I rscs. of 4.1Moz AuE1 (1.7Moz Au and 1Blbs Cu)▪ NPV (5%, after tax) of C$375M and IRR of 16.7%2

▪ LOM of 12 years at 222Koz AuE/yr at AISC of $744/oz▪ Additional ~12,000m of drilling planned for 2017 Exciting upside potential

11

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 dumps• Currently on care & maintenance (forecast of $4M for 2017)

• Existing infrastructure includes:• Process plant of 52ktpd with grinding capacity currently limited to 25ktpd• 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)• Concentrate rail load-out facility in Mackenzie (currently being leased to Mt. Milligan) • Other (admin building, workshop, warehouse, 1,500m all weather air strip, 400 km

access road)

12

Kemess History

KS 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

1996: Kemessproperty acquired by Royal Oak Mines

1998: Kemess South open pit mine commences operations

1999: Kemessacquired by Northgate Minerals

2011: Kemess South open pit mine operation end

2011: Northgate acquired byAuRico Gold

2013: KUG feasibility study released

2015: Kemess spun-out to AuRico Metals (as part of AuRico Gold -Alamos merger)

2016: KUG updated feasibility study released

2017: KE resource update

2017: KUG EA Approval (Federal & Provincial)

2017: KUG IBA Finalized

2017: KE PEA

13

Kemess – Key Study Outputs

Kemess South(Actual)

Kemess UG1

(Feasibility Study)Kemess East2

(PEA – PR )

Tonnes, Au Grade, Cu Grade3 219Mt / 0.63gpt / 0.21%(1.08 gpt AuE; 0.47% CuE)

107Mt / 0.54gpt / 0.27%(1.12 gpt AuE; 0.54% CuE)

103Mt / 0.42gpt / 0.34%(1.16 gpt AuE; 0.56% CuE)

Throughput 50,000 25,000 30,000

LOM Free Cash Flow (C$ M)4 $750 $987 $797

NPV (5%, After-tax) NA C$421M C$375M

After-Tax IRR NA 15.4% 16.7%

Initial Capex ~C$470M C$600M (US$450M) C$327 (US$245M)

Mine Life (years) 13 12 12

Avg. Annual Gold Production (Koz) 241 106 80

Avg. Annual Copper Production (Mlbs) 64 47 57

Avg. Annual AuE Production (Koz) 431 207 222

Avg. Annual CuE Production (Mlbs) 151 104 92

Cash Costs Gold (by-product) ($/oz) $169/oz $94/oz ($415)/oz

AISC – Co-product basis (Au; Cu) NA $718/oz; $1.44/lb $744/oz; $1.79/lb

AISC – By-product basis (Au) NA $244/oz ($69)/oz

KUG & KE have not been integrated – Optimization opportunity to be evaluated through integrated study

14

1 Kemess UG production equivalency and cost figures based on $1,250/oz Au and $2.50/lb Cu. NPV and IRR figures based on $1,250/oz Au and $3.00/lb Cu.2 All Kemess East figures based on $1,250/oz Au and $3.00/lb Cu.3 Gold Equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $3.00/lb Cu. KE figures reflect M&I Resources, and Kemess South and KUG reflect P&P Reserves4 Average realized prices for Kemess South during 1998-2011 were $549/oz Au and $1.79/lb Cu

KUG - Reserves & Resources

Classification QuantityGrade 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 6,878

Total P&P 107,381 0.54 0.27 1.99 1,868 629,595 6,878

Measured - - - - - - -

Indicated 246,400 0.42 0.22 1.75 3,328 1,195,300 13,866

Total M&I 246,400 0.42 0.22 1.75 3,328 1,195,300 13,866

Inferred

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

Kemess Underground

M&I Resources are inclusive of reserves

15

Kemess Timeline – And Cu Outlook

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Tho

usa

nd

To

nn

es

Production from Existing and Fully Committed Mines

Supply (Mine Production + SXEW + Scrap) Demand

Source: Teck, Wood Mackenzie, CRU, ICSG

DEFICIT

Expected First Production at Kemess

Schedule as per Feasibility Study (March 2016)

Federal and Provincial EA Approvals

KUG Impact Benefit Agreement Signed

Normal Course Permitting

Detailed Engineering

Project Financing

Access Corridor Development

Decline Development

Develop Panel Cave

First Production

20222016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

16

3: KUG - Feasibility Study Highlights

March 2016 - Positive Feasibility Study Update Announced for Kemess UG

Footprint:570 m E-W90-300 m N-S200 m draw height200-500 m below surface

17

Kemess Underground Project

18

Existing Process PlantAdmin-Workshop-Warehouse ComplexCamp

Proposed Mining Process

Panel caving underground mining minimizes waste rock

1. Ore crushed underground

2. Placed on conveyor to surface

3. Process plant ~25,000 tpd

4. Tailings deposited into Kemess South mined out pit

5. Au-Cu concentrate trucked to Mackenzie

6. Concentrate transferred to rail and sent to port/smelters

Underground panel caving

19

Waste Rock, Tailings Storage & Water Management

• Existing Kemess South Pit will be the Kemess Underground Tailings Storage Facility (KUG TSF)

• 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 in Year 6 to 8

• Mine water will be pumped to the KUG TSF during operations

• Process water will be sourced from the KUG TSF

20

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 ventilation 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

• KUG panel cave requires < 5% of ore tonnes to be blasted (vs. 100% for a typical UG mine)

“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 Consulting21

KUG Extraction Level Layout

22

KUG Surface Expression

• Ore fed from undercut level to extraction level via 582 total drawpoints

• Average 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

23

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 no penalty elements and an estimated 22% copper content & high gold/silver by-product credits (30–50 g/t Au, and 75-100 g/t Ag in concentrate)

• Ore NSR values peak at almost C$48/t in Year 3 of production and average C$35/t over LOM

24

KUG: Production and Costs

Low Cost Mining

▪ Avg LOM production of 106koz Au, 47M lbs Cu, 207koz AuE1

▪ 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 accelerated debt repayment

▪ Payback of 3.3 years (consensus pricing case2)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

-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

25

Operating Cost Benchmarking

(C$/Tonne)

New Afton Costs

(Actuals per 2015 43-101)(1)

New Afton Scale-

AdjustedCosts (2)

Kemess UG Costs

(per 2016 43-101)

Mining 6.59 5.34 5.39

Processing 9.46 6.54 5.95

Site G&A 2.97 1.70 2.93

Total 19.02 13.58 14.27

• Kemess UG mining cost estimate compares well to existing block cave in British Columbia after adjusting for scale of the operation

• Kemess UG processing costs are based on actual costs of operating the KemessMill, which ceased operations in 2011, updated for current labour, consumables and electricity rates

• Kemess UG G&A costs are higher by $1 per tonne due to location, and the need to incur additional flight and camp costs

1) New Afton’s actual costs for 2014 are provided in table 21-2 of the New Afton NI 43-101 Technical Report dated March 23, 20152) Scale-Adjusted cost calculated by applying assumption that 40% of mining costs, 65% of processing costs, and 90% of G&A costs would remain constant if

capacity was increased from 2014 actual throughput of 13,130 TPD to Kemess design capacity of 25,000 TPD26

Mining38%

Processing 40%

G&A20%

Water Treatment

2%

Kemess Opex Breakdown

Select Caving Comparables

2016E Cash Cost (Co-Product) Positioning

KUG in top

quartile(2)

Northparkes

Cadia EastNew Afton

OperationTonnes (Mt) Au (g/t) Cu (%)

Kemess UG 107 0.54 0.27

Kemess East* 113 0.46 0.38

New Afton 60 0.60 0.78

Northparkes 102 0.26 0.60

Cadia East 1,500 0.48 0.28

Proven & Probable Reserve Comparison1

27

*Note: M&I resources shown for Kemess East

Source: Cost curve from Wood Mackenzie

Capital Expenditures

• “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 production

• Opportunity to reduce capex through equipment leasing (representing 19% of total capital)

Item To First Production Additional to Commercial Production

Total

Mine $154 $46 $200

Mill $23 $6 $29

Access Corridor $27 $0 $27

Conveyor $30 $0 $30

UG Electrical & Ventilation $22 $0 $22

Owner’s Cost, G&A, Other $25 $1 $26

Capitalized Operating Costs $108 $71 $179

Pre-Comm Revenue $0 ($64) ($64)

TOTAL $393 $59 $45228

0

40

80

120

160

200

Year -4 Year -3 Year -2 Year -1 Year 1

KUG Capital Costs (C$M)

0

100

200

300

400

Offtake-linkedproject financing

EquipmentFinancing

Sale of RoyaltyPortfolio

Potential KemessRoyalty or Stream

Sale of JV Interestand associated

reductionin capex

Illustrative Financing Alternatives (C$ M)

KUG Capex Profile and Funding

▪ Ongoing “stage gating” efforts to identify opportunities to defer non-critical path capital

▪ Pre-commercial capex1 per FS at commencement of construction totals C$587M (US$440M)

Financing Advantages:

▪ 100% interest▪ Unencumbered (no

royalty on Kemess)▪ Clean concentrate▪ Valuable royalty

portfolio

1 Includes capitalized operating costs of C$222M and pre-commercial revenue of C$83M

Total: $640M+

29

?

Offtake Linked Debt Financing

• KUG & KE to produce clean copper concentrate with no penalty elements & high gold/silver by-product credits

• Engaged Cutfield Freeman to assess off-take linked financing alternatives

• Project supports significant debt capacity (up to 50%-60% of total required capital)

• Targeting Agency-backed project debt in exchange for offtake commitment - some recent examples include:

• Copper Mountain (JBIC), Gibraltar (JBIC), Caserones (JBIC, NEXI, JOGMEC) and Sierra Gorda (JBIC)

• Objective is to have terms in place by mid-2018

30

Project Commodity Agency Partner(s) Capital Cost1Debt Arranged

(Agency / Total)

Direct Investment

(Interest / Acquisition Cost)

Caserones CopperJBIC, NEXI,

JOGMEC

Pan Pacific Copper,

Mitsui US$2,000m

Undisclosed /

US$1,400mN/A (Wholly-owned)

Sierra Gorda Copper JBIC

KGHM, Sumitomo

Corp., Sumitomo

Metal Mining

US$2,877mUS$700m /

US$1,000m45% / US$724m

Copper

MountainCopper JBIC

Copper Mountain

Mining, Mitsubishi

Materials

C$437mUS$160m /

US$320m25% / C$28.75m

Gibraltar Copper - Taseko Mines, Sojitz N/A N/A 12.5% / C$187m

Source: Cutfield Freeman & Co Ltd

1. Capital cost at announcement of project financing

Select Offtake-Linked Transactions

• Undergoing a coordinated permitting review process, meaning that all required permit applications are submitted and reviewed at same time

• Submitted all permit applications to Major Mines Permitting Office (MMPO) on August 31st

• Commenced 45-day screening process to ensure that applications are complete

• Once permit applications have been screened, and if accepted, there is expected to be up to three rounds of comments during which all comments will be received and addressed under specified timelines

• Permitting process anticipated to be completed in Q2 2018

31

Permitting Status and Timelines

February 2014Project 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 required

May 2014 – January 2016Finalization of Applicant Information Requirements (Terms of Reference) and preparation of Environmental Assessment Application

May 2016Submission of Environmental Application

January 2017EAO released draft Assessment Report which concluded that the project would not result in significant adverse effects

March 2017 KUG granted EA Certificate from BCEAO and CEAA issued a positive Decision Statement

August 31, 2017 Submitted permit applications to Major Mines Permitting Office (MMPO)

Q2/2018 Expected receipt of normal course permits needed to commence construction

Environmental Permitting Timeline

Strong Relationships With First Nations

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’)

• On May 18th the Company entered into an Impact Benefits Agreement ("IBA") with TKN

• The IBA provides a framework that formalizes the long-term co-operative relationship between AMI and TKN over the life of the project

• Captures mutual commitment to consult and maintain an open, respectful and cooperative relationship throughout the development and operation

• Provides for meaningful TKN participation through training, employment, business opportunities, environmental protection and other means

32

4. Kemess East – PEA Highlights & Exploration

33

Kemess East Resource Update

• Successful 2016 drilling program with highlight holes including:• #13: 628m of 0.53 g/t Au, 0.41% Cu• #12: 549m of 0.55 g/t Au, 0.41% Cu• #9: 504m of 0.52 g/t Au, 0.36% Cu

• High grade core associated with strong potassic alteration zone which remains open both to north and south, as does the overall deposit

• Overall Indicated category tonnage increased by 74Mt (188%) compared to March 2016 estimate

• Higher grade Indicated core includes: 67Mt at 0.43% Cu and 0.60 g/t Au

~82Mt in high grade (potassicstrong) core with Cu grade

60% higher and Au grade 8% higher than KUG Reserves

Kemess UG + Kemess East Reserves and Resources (all categories) of +12Moz AuE

Indicated tonnes in high grade core increased by 250%

Classification QuantityGrade Contained Metal

Gold (g/t) Copper (%) Silver (g/t) Gold (koz) Copper (klbs) Silver (koz)

Indicatedpotassic strong 67,200 0.60 0.43 2.06 1,292 640,000 4,457

potassic moderate 40,000 0.27 0.32 1.81 352 286,000 2,336

potassic weak 5,100 0.19 0.22 1.45 31 24,000 238

phyllic + propylitic 800 0.20 0.21 1.40 5 4,000 36

Indicated - Total 113,100 0.46 0.38 1.94 1,680 954,000 7,066Inferred

potassic strong 15,200 0.51 0.41 2.05 249 137,000 1,003

potassic moderate 41,900 0.26 0.34 1.91 353 311,000 2,579

potassic weak 6,000 0.17 0.20 1.42 32 27,000 274

phyllic + propylitic 700 0.24 0.21 1.42 6 3,000 33

Total Inferred 63,800 0.31 0.34 1.90 640 478,000 3,889

Kemess East Resource1

M&I Resources are inclusive of reserves34

Kemess East (KE) – PEA Summary

▪ PEA for KE project completed by Golders in May 2017 and NI 43-101 report released in July

▪ Presents stand-alone scenario that does not factor in or modify economics of the Feasibility stage KUG Project

▪ UG panel cave offset by 0.9km from KUG and 770m deeper

▪ Total life-of-mine production of 963koz gold, 687Mlbs copper and 3.8Moz silver

▪ After-tax NPV5% of C$375M, and IRR of 16.7%

▪ Key upsides include:

▪ Sequencing – consider overlapping production between KUG and KE (using current plant capacity of 50 ktpd)

▪ Integration – potential economies of scale with KUG project on ore processing, G&A and site services

▪ Mineral Resources – Improving quality and quantity of KE mineral resource

▪ Next steps include:

▪ KUG-KE scoping level optimization (H2 2017)

▪ 2017 Kemess drilling (Q3) to lead to an updated KE mineral resource estimate (early 2018)

▪ Complete a feasibility-level study on integrated development scenario for KUG and KE (H2 2018)

35

Significant Production Scale

36

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 Y16 Y17

Kemess East - Project Schedule Year

Kemess East AuE Production (oz)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

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

Kemess UG - Project Schedule Year

Kemess UG AuE Production (oz)

▪ Kemess UG (2016 – Feasibility) : LOM of 12 years at 207Koz AuE/yr at AISC of $718/oz

▪ Kemess East (2017 – PEA): LOM of 12 years at 222Koz AuE/yr at AISC of $744/oz

Kemess East 2017 Drilling Update

Pad IKOZ zone

Pad E

Pad D 5

Pad A

Pad IKOZ zone

• Program goal:

• infill drilling targeting the potassic strong zone,

• growth holes on the outer edges of the known deposit, and

• looking for higher grade within the Kemess Offset Zone

• Kemess Offset Zone (“KOZ”) is located between the KUG and KE deposits, which are 1 km apart

37

• 2017 drill program of ~12,000 metres at KE (~C$4M - $5M) commenced on July 8th

Kemess East – Opportunities & Next Steps

Upcoming Near-Term Activities

Q3 2017• Additional in-fill and expansion drilling

Q4 2017

• Release of 2017 Kemess East drill program results

• KUG-KE scoping level optimization

Q4 2017 -

Q1 2018

• Incorporate 2017 drilling data into update KE mineral resource estimateQ1 2018

• Complete feasibility-level study on integrated development scenario for KUG and KE

2018

• Complete additional metallurgical test work on KE ore

2018

• Continue baseline environmental data collection for KE

Project Enhancement Opportunities

Sequencing: Alternative scenario to evaluate overlap in production between KUG and KE

Integration with KUG project: Economies of scale for integrated scenario may exist in: ore processing, G&A and site services

Mineral Resources: KE mineral resource remains open to the north, south, and west

Development advance rate: Increase development efficiencies of forecasted UG development rate of 4.5 m/day per heading

Metallurgy: Further improvement in recoveries and concentrate grade based on additional metallurgical test work

Tailings alternatives: Additional tailings storage alternatives for KE could be studied, including the further use of conventional slurry tails

Mining mobile equipment leasing: PEA assumes purchasing all mobile equipment for C$90M

Operating cost: Potential to decrease mining operating costs with automated production load-haul-dump (LHD) equipment

38

5. Kemess – Valuation & Benchmarking

EA and IBA in place BC, Canada

Kemessrepresents biggest value opportunity

Overall revenue mix ~50%/50% Au/Cu

KUG: 12 yrsKE: 12 yrs

Lowest Cost Quartile

Annual prod’n ofKUG: 207koz AuEKE: 222koz AuE

Large porphyry system that is not fully explored 39

Kemess – Sensitivities

Copper Price (US$/lb)

$2.50 $2.75 $3.00 3.25 3.50

Gold Price (US$/oz)

$1,350 $347 $418 $490 $561 $632

$1,300 $312 $384 $456 $527 $598

$1,250 $278 $349 $421 $493 $564

$1,200 $243 $315 $387 $458 $530

$1,150 $208 $280 $352 $424 $495

KUG Sensitivities NPV5% - Feasibility Study Update (March 2016) based on C$/US$ FX rate of 0.75

40

KE Sensitivities NPV5% - PEA release (May 2017) based on C$/US$ FX rate of 0.75

Copper Price (US$/lb)

$2.50 $2.75 $3.00 3.25 3.50

Gold Price (US$/oz)

$1,350 $258 $340 $422 $504 $586

$1,300 $235 $317 $399 $480 $562

$1,250 $211 $293 $375 $457 $539

$1,200 $188 $270 $352 $433 $515

$1,150 $164 $246 $328 $410 $492

IRR

($3.00/lb)

16.5%

16.0%

15.4%

14.7%

14.0%

IRR

($3.00/lb)

17.9%

17.3%

16.7%

16.1%

15.5%

Kemess Project PositioningGold Developers

▪ 1) Based on respective company’s price deck.

▪ 2) AMI enterprise value adjusted for fair value of royalties assumed based on analyst consensus estimates.

▪ 3) Based on 2016 Fraser Institute “Survey of Mining Companies”; “Best Practices” based on world class regulatory environment, highly competitive taxation, no political risk or uncertainty and a fully stable mining regime.

▪ Kemess compares favourably to other projects on a number of factors including: stage, jurisdiction, scale and valuation

Company

Project NPV(1)

EV / Project NPV

EA Approval

Jurisdiction(3)

73 73 69 75 61 82 61 76 58 75 n/a 65 59 30 81 44 75 73

AMI Gold Developers Gold DevelopersKemess

PEA

PFS

FS

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

Avg

An

nu

al

Au

Eq

Pro

du

cti

on

(M

oz)

NP

V (

US

$m

m)

Avg AuEq Production

- x

1.00x

2.00x

3.00x

EV

/ P

roje

ct

NP

V(2

)

KU

G

KE

Bu

riti

ca

Stib

nit

e

Fru

tal d

el

No

rte

Ho

rne

5

Vo

lta

Gra

nd

e

Eag

le G

old

Mo

nta

gn

e d’Or

Ba

ck R

iver

Am

uls

ar

Ixta

ca

Cu

rra

gh

ina

lt

Ro

mer

o

Rel

ief

Ca

nyo

n

Cer

ro Q

uem

a

Sug

ar

Zon

e

Red

Mo

un

tain

Source: Macquarie Capital

41

86

6658 55

41 3831

20 197 5

25

80102030405060708090

100

0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7

0.60.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90

Compelling Valuation

Total Enterprise Value / Total Gold Resources

P/NAV (Consensus)

Source: CIBC Global Comps (August 28, 2017) – NAV is per ‘analyst consensus’ and resources include all categories (gold only)

*Royalty value removed from numerator and denominator; ** Value of royalties treated as cash for EV calculation 42

6. Questions & Answers

43

Endnotes Slide 4 – Overview: 1) Gold equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $3.00/lb Cu2) June 30, 2017 cash balance of US$21.2M, converted using our annual FX rate assumption of 0.75

Slide 6 – Major Shareholders: 1) Per Bloomberg, Sedi, and company filings. AMI Management & Director ownership includes RSUs received in lieu of cash bonuses

Slide 7 – Producing Royalties: Reserve and resource figures and production guidance estimates based on most recent updates from asset owners1) Reserves and resources per most recent resource updates from asset owners; Assumes annual production levels for YD, Fosterville, Hemlo, Eagle River of:

200Koz, 212Koz, 205Koz and 45Koz respectively and recoveries of 90%, 93%, 95% and 95% respectively

Slide 11 - 1) Gold equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb Cu2) Assumes $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu, and C$/US$ of 0.75

Slide 14 - Kemess Key Study Outputs: Gold equivalent ounces calculated on the basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb Cu 1) Kemess South data compiled from historical year-end MD&A reports from Northgate Minerals Corporation2) Assumes $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu, and C$/US$ of 0.75

Slide 25 –1) Gold equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb Cu2) ) Consensus pricing deck assumes $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu, and C$/US$ of 0.75

Slide 27 - Select Caving Comparables1) Proven and Probable Reserves for New Afton and Cadia East shown as of Dec 31, 2016; Kemess and Northparkes shown as of Dec. 31, 20152) KUG average total cash cost in commercial production

Slide 34 – Kemess East Resource Estimate as of January 13, 2017

▪ NSR cut-off value of C$17.3/t was used to define indicated and inferred resources within a reasonable prospects for economic extraction solid

▪ 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 of 91% copper, 72% gold and 65% silver; as well as a 22% copper grade for concentrate. Molybdenum was excluded from the NSR calculation.

▪ Details of the Sample Preparation and Quality Assurance and Quality Control are presented in AuRico Metals’ November 8, 2016 press release reporting on the results of the Company’s 2016 drill program.

▪ Resources were generated from 81 holes drilled at Kemess East in 2006, 2007, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

▪ 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 Marek Nowak, SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Mr. Nowak is a “Qualified Person” as defined by NI 43-101.

Slide 36 –1) Gold equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb Cu