Kemess Project Overview

June 22, 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. Introduction and General Overview

2. Kemess Overview

3. Kemess Underground (KUG) - Feasibility Study Highlights

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

5. Kemess Valuation & Benchmarking

6. Summary

7. Q&A

Table of Contents

3

Kemess Underground Project – Key Technical Team

John Fitzgerald

Chief Operating Officer

• Over 27 years experience• Director of Mining at Northgate Minerals and 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

Chris Rockingham

Vice President, Development

• Over 30 years experience• VP Exploration and Business Development at Northgate Minerals• Extensive precious and base metal deposit experience throughout North and South

America• Recipient of H.H. “Spud” Huestis Award in 2016

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 and regulatory compliance

1: Introduction

4

AuRico Overview

Compelling Opportunity

✓ Strong balance sheet (C$27M 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 Au/Cu project in British Columbia

✓ Kemess Underground (KUG) EA Approved and IBA Signed

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

✓ KUG Feasibility completed in March 2016; Kemess East PEA in May 2017; Kemess integrated study to be completed in 2018

✓ +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$12.7 – C$13.9M (US$9.5 - $10.4M)

✓ 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%)

5

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

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

AMI Share Price Since Inception in July 2015

AMI (C$/shr)

Gold Price US$/oz (indexed to AMI)

Track-Record of Adding Value

Kemess:

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

✓ A 188% increase in Indicated resource for Kemess East

✓ Signed Impact Benefits Agreement for KUG

✓ Announced positive PEA results on Kemess East

Royalties:

✓ 2017E royalty revenue guidance increased by 19%-24% to C$12.7 – C$13.9M

✓ Increase in P&P Reserves: Fosterville +66%; Hemlo+73%; Eagle River +15%

✓ Increase in Production Guidance: Fosterville + 43%-55%; YD + 18-24%; Eagle River + 12%-22%

✓ Acquisition of Kiska Metals completed

Key Developments – 2017 Year to Date AuRico Shares vs. Gold Price

+7%

+117%

6

$0.96

$2.66

$2.37

($0.26)

$5.72

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Royalties +Cash

Kemess UG(per FS)

Kemess East(per PEA)

CorporateOutflow

Total

Net Asset Value per Share1

Significant Valuation Opportunity driven by:

1. Progressive recognition of Kemess’ value as project is advanced

2. Kemess East drilling and resource update

3. Integrated Feasibility Study for KUG and KE

4. Potential for royalties to continue to become more valuable / accretive deals

(C$/sh)

Royalty value at royalty co. P/NAV of 1.5x

Share Price

7

The Kemess Underground Project is 100% owned by AuRico Metals

2: Kemess Overview

Processing plant(capacity of 52ktpd)

Admin building

Camp (accommodations for +300)

KUG tailings storage facility

KUG

8

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)

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 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

11

Kemess Site Overview

Kemess Underground (Feasibility – 2016)

▪ Reserves of 3.4Moz AuE1 (1.9Moz Au and 0.6Blbs Cu)▪ NPV (5%, after tax) of C$420M 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 4.0Moz AuE (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

12

Kemess – Key Study Outputs

Kemess South1

(Actual)Kemess UG2

(Feasibility Study)Kemess East2

(PEA – PR )

Tonnes, Au Grade, Cu Grade 219Mt / 0.63gpt / 0.21%

107Mt / 0.54gpt / 0.27%

103Mt / 0.42gpt / 0.34%

Throughput (tpd) 50,000 25,000 30,000

LOM Free Cash Flow (C$ M) $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 and KE have not been integrated –Optimization opportunity to be evaluated through integrated study 13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Kemess Underground Project

17

KUG – Feasibility Study Summary

• Meaningful production: 238Koz Gold Equivalent (AuE1) annually for first 5 years, 207Koz AuE over life of mine (LOM) (12 years)

• Low cost: All-in Sustaining Costs 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 capital 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)

18

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

• 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

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 conc)

• 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 Expenses – Per FS

• 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 in USD consisting primarily of equipment spares, consumables and fuel

Item C$/t ore

Mining $5.39

Processing Plant $5.69

Water Treatment $0.26

G&A $2.93

Total $14.27

Mining38%

Processing 40%

G&A20%

Water Treatment

2%

Opex Breakdown

26

Operating Cost Benchmarking

(C$/Tonne)New Afton Costs

(Actuals per 2015 43-101)(1)

New Afton Scale-Adjusted

Costs (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 (including then current labour costs), which ceased operations in 2011, updated for current consumables pricing

• 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 TPD

27

Select Caving Comparables

2016E Cash Cost (Co-Product) Positioning

KUG in top

quartile(2)

Northparkes

Cadia

East

New

Afton

Operation Tonnes (Mt) Au (g/t) Cu (%)

Kemess UG 107 0.54 0.27

New Afton 60 0.60 0.78

Northparkes 102 0.26 0.60

Cadia East 1,500 0.48 0.28

Proven & Probable Reserve Comparison

28

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 $45229

0

40

80

120

160

200

Year -4 Year -3 Year -2 Year -1 Year 0

KUG Capital Costs (C$M)

Capex Profile and Funding Alternatives

▪ Estimated Year -4 (mid ‘18 to mid ‘19) capital requirement of ~C$50M if non-critical path capital is deferred to following year

• Pre-commercial capex1 per FS at commencement of construction totals C$587M (US$440M)2

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$83M2 Excludes 2017 budgeted expenditures related to permitting, etc.

Total: $580M+

0

100

200

300

400

Offtake-linked projectfinancing

Sale of RoyaltyPortfolio

Potential KemessRoyalty or Stream

Sale of JV Interest andassociated reduction

in capex

Illustrative Financing Alternatives (C$ M)

?

30

Project Commodity Agency Partner(s) Capital Cost1Debt Arranged

(Agency / Total)

Direct Investment

(Interest / Acquisition Cost)

Escondida Copper JBIC

BHP, Rio Tinto,

Mitsubishi Corp., JX

Nippon Mining,

Mitsubishi Materials

N/A$300m /

$500mN/A (Expansion)

Caserones CopperJBIC, NEXI,

JOGMEC

Pan Pacific Copper,

Mitsui US$2,000m

Undisclosed /

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

Cerro Verde Copper JBIC

Freeport McMoRan,

Sumitomo Metal Mining, Cia de Minas

Buenaventura

US$985mUS$247.5m /

US$450m21% / US$265m

Sierra Gorda Copper JBIC

KGHM, Sumitomo

Corp., Sumitomo

Metal Mining

US$2,877mUS$700m /

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

Antucoya Copper JBICAntofagasta,

MarubeniUS$1,300m

US$195m /

US$650m30% / US$350m

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

Cote Gold -

IAMGOLD,

Sumitomo Metal

Mining

US$1,037m N/A 27.75% / US$195m

Select Offtake-Linked Transactions

1. Capital cost at announcement of project financing

Source: Cutfield Freeman & Co Ltd31

Environmental Permitting

• On March 15th CEAA issued a positive Decision Statement and the BC EAO granted an Environmental Assessment (EA) Certificate for KUG

• Currently preparing necessary permits to commence construction, with permitting anticipated to be completed in Q2 2018

• In addition detailed engineering is in progress with a focus on access corridor construction related activities which are expected to account for first 12 months of construction schedule

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

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

Environmental Permitting Timeline

32

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.

33

4: Kemess East– PEA Highlights & Exploration

34

Kemess: A History of Exploration Success

Zone of Subsidence

• 1975: First hole drilled at Kemess South, delineated in early 90’s

• 1986 – 1992: Discover porphyry-style mineralisation at Kemess North (which is now KUG)

• 2003: Inferred KN Open Pit resource:• 414 Mt @ 0.31 g/t Au and 0.16% Cu

• 2006 - 2007: IP surveys/drilling identified new zone east of KN• Federal Review Panel recommended against developing Kemess North

Open Pit as risks outweighed benefits

• 2010 – 2013: • Geotechnical/hydrogeological drilling completed at Kemess Underground• 2013 Feasibility report deems Kemess Underground Panel Cave economic• Kemess Underground – Proven and Probable Reserves: 100.4 Mt @ 0.56 g/t Au, 2.05 g/t Ag

and 0.28% Cu

• 2013 -2014: • 2013: Revisit Kemess East, drilled 13,337m in 9 holes. • 2014: Continued exploration drilling – 16,873m in 12 holes.• Initial Kemess East resource estimate released January 21, 2015

• 2015-2016:• Continued delineation of Kemess East system and expanded exploration drilling 35

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

• High 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 reserves36

Kemess East 2017 Drill Targets

Pad IKOZ zone

Pad E

Pad D 5

Pad A

Pad IKOZ zone

• 2017 drill program of ~12,000 metres planned at KE (~C$4M - $5M)

• Program will include:

• 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 is located between the KUG and KE deposits, which are one km apart

KE Looking South

Pad A

Pad IKOZ zone

37

Kemess East (KE) – PEA Summary

• PEA for KE project completed by Golder Associates in May 2017, with NI 43-101 report to follow

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

• KE underground panel cave is 0.9km east of 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

• 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:

• 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

38

Significant Production Scale

-

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

KUG - Project Schedule Year

KUG AuE Production (oz)

• KUG (2016 – Feasibility) : LOM of 12 years at 207Koz AuE1/yr at AISC of $718/oz

• Kemess East (2017 – PEA): LOM of 12 years at 222Koz AuE1/yr at AISC of $744/oz

39

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

Q1 2018

• Incorporate 2017 drilling data into update KE mineral resource estimate

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

40

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 41

Kemess - Sensitivities

KUG Project Sensitivities 1 2 3

Gold Price (US$/oz) $1,250 $1,250 1,350

Copper Price (US$/lb) $2.50 $3.00 $3.00

C$/US$ 0.75 0.75 0.75

After-Tax Net Cash Flow (C$ M) $746 $969 $1,067

After-Tax NPV (5%) (C$ M) $289 $421 $479

After-Tax IRR 12.6% 15.4% 16.5%

Payback (years) 3.9 3.3 3.1

KUG Sensitivities - Figures as per Feasibility Study Update (March 2016)

KE Sensitivities - Figures as per PEA release (May 2017)

KE Project Sensitivities 1 2 3

Gold Price (US$/oz) $1,270 $1,250 $1,350

Copper Price (US$/lb) $2.60 $3.00 $3.25

C$/US$ 0.74 0.75 0.75

After-Tax Net Cash Flow (C$ M) $623 $797 $1,014

After-Tax NPV (5%) (C$ M) $269 $375 $507

After-Tax IRR 13.9% 16.7% 19.9%

Pre-tax Payback (years) 4 3 342

KUG Value Creation Through Advancement

$421

$1,136

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 NAV

Kemess Underground - 5% NAV (after-tax) Over Time (C$ M)

Investment (Capex) Time Value

~C$160M Average Annual LOM Operating Cash Flow

~10xPotential Cash Flow

Multiple

~C$1.6BImplied Value

Potential

Per Feasibility Study (March 2016), $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu, C$/US$ of $0.75

Pre-First Production Capex of C$524M (US$393M)

Advancement of Kemess UG presents opportunity for +C$1.0B potential

valuation (before factoring in Kemess East opportunity)

43

0.9

1x

0.8

2x

0.7

9x

0.7

9x

0.7

7x

0.7

6x

0.6

6x

0.5

3x

0.5

1x

0.4

8x

0.4

3x

0.4

1x

0.3

4x

Sabin

a

Lundin

Gold

Osi

sko

Inte

gra

Dalr

adia

n

Vic

tori

a

Hart

e

AuRic

o

Orl

a M

inin

g

Conti

nenta

l

Belo

Sun

Falc

o

Gold

Quest

$656

$533

$473

$359

$301

$297

$257

$224

$221

$153

$147

$112

$74

Osi

sko

Lundin

Gold

Conti

nenta

l

Inte

gra

Dalr

adia

n

Sabin

a

Vic

tori

a

Hart

e

Belo

Sun

Falc

o

AuRic

o

Orl

a M

inin

g

Gold

Quest

-

0.50x

1.00x

1.50x

2.00x

2.50x

Jun-16 Sep-16 Dec-16 Mar-17 Jun-17

Pri

ce /

Net

Ass

et

Valu

e (x)

1.48x

0.66x 0.53x

1.26x

AuRico Metals Relative Positioning

-

5.0x

10.0x

15.0x

20.0x

25.0x

30.0x

Jun-16 Sep-16 Dec-16 Mar-17 Jun-17

Pri

ce /

NT

M C

ash

Flo

w (x)

18.8x

8.2x

P/NAV Multiples Over Time1,2Relative Positioning1,2

P/NTM CF Multiples Over Time1,2

▪1Market data as at June 9, 2017.

▪2Based on analyst consensus estimates of NAV and cash flow.

▪3Average excludes AuRico.

▪ Senior Gold: Agnico, AngloGold, Barrick, Gold Fields, Goldcorp, Kinross, Newcrest, Newmont, Randgold, and Yamana. ▪ Senior Royalty: Franco-Nevada, Osisko, Royal Gold, Sandstorm, and Wheaton Precious Metals.▪ Source: Bloomberg Financial Markets and Thomson One Analytics.

Mar

ket

Cap

(US$

mm

)P

/NA

V (x

)

AuRico Sr. Gold Sr. RoyaltyGold Dev.

Peer Avg.3

0.64x

Source: CIBC World Markets Inc.

AMI trading below developer comps, despite having a high quality royalty portfolio which should trade at a premium to NAV

44

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

45

▪ Both Kemess East and Kemess Underground have industry leading AISC margins

▪ Note: Width of bubble size proportionate to LOM capex requirements.

▪ 1) Indicative AISC margin calculated as US$1,250/oz gold minus by-product AISC. Based on company disclosure.

▪ 2) Indicative AISC margin calculated as US$1,250/oz gold minus co-product AISC. Based on company disclosure.

Kemess Project PositioningPrecious Metals

Buritica

Cerro Quema

Red Mountain

AmulsarBack River

KEEagle GoldFruta del NorteKUG

Curraghinalt

Romero Stibnite

Horne 5

Relief Canyon

Volta Grande

Montagne d'Or

Ixtaca

Sugar Zone

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Ind

ica

tive

AIS

C M

arg

in (

US

$/o

z)(

2)

Mine Life

Source: Macquarie Capital

Co-Product AISC Margin

KE

KUG

Horne 5Ixtaca

BuriticaCerro Quema

Red Mountain

Amulsar

Romero

Stibnite

Back River

Fruta del NorteEa…

Curraghinalt

Volta GrandeMontagne d'Or

Relief Canyon

Sugar Zone

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Ind

ica

tive

AIS

C M

arg

in (

US

$/o

z)(

1)

Mine Life

By-Product AISC Margin

46

Recent Comparable TransactionCôté Project (Sumitomo acquired 27.75% for US$195M) vs. Kemess

Units Côté Gold Project Kemess UG Kemess East

Ownership 64.75% 100.00% 100.00%

Royalty Encumbrance 0.75% - 1.50% 0% 0%

Location ON BC BC

Mine Type Open Pit Panel Cave Panel Cave

Study PFS (2017) FS (2016) PEA (2017)

Stage Greenfields Brownfields Brownfields

EA Yes Yes Yes

Permitting Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

IBA with First Nations No Yes No

P&P Reserves (100% basis)1 Mt 196 107 113 (M&I)

Gold Grade g/t 0.94 0.54 0.46 (M&I)

Copper Grade % - 0.27 0.38 (M&I)

AuEq Grade2 g/t 0.94 1.01 1.12 (M&I)

Contained AuEq Koz 5,926 3,478 4,071 (M&I)

Mine Life Years 17 12 12

Milling Capacity ktpd 32 25 30

LOM Avg AuEq Prod’n koz/yr 320 207 222

Notes: 1Kemess East tonnage, grade and contained metal based on M&I Resources2AuE calculations based on $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu and $18.00/oz Ag3 NPV’s and IRR’s based on commodity prices of: $1,250/oz Au, $3.00/lb Cu and $18.00/oz Ag

After-tax NPV (5%)3 US$M $703 $316 $281

After-tax IRR3 % 14.0% 15.4% 16.7%

Initial Capital US$M $1,047 $515 $245

Total Capital US$M $1,465 $713 $587

LOM Average AISC (Co-product) US$/oz $689 $718 $744

LOM Average Operating Costs US$/t $15.43 $12.60 $12.62

47

Advanced-stage (EA Approved, IBA in hand, FS complete)

Brownfields; lower risk capex

Sizeable resource: +12Moz AuE ounces (all resource categories)

Long life (12 years at KUG plus further 12 years at KE)

Solid KUG economics with significant upside (especially from KE)

Good jurisdiction

Clean concentrate

Unencumbered asset

6. AuRico Summary

Why Kemess? Why AuRico?

Strong Team

Business supported by valuable Royalty Portfolio

Compelling Valuation

Positive Au/Cu Outlook

Several Upcoming Catalysts Including:

Kemess East Drilling / Resource Update

KUG & KE Integrated Scenario

Royalty Updates48

7. Questions & Answers

49

Endnotes Slide 5 – Overview: 1) Gold equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb Cu2) Mar. 31, 2017 cash balance adjusted to include additional C$11M in cash, as per Q1 2017 announcement dated May 4, 2017

Slide 7 – 1) NAV per Share – Value of royalties based on analyst consensus using latest reports from Macquarie Capital Markets, National Bank Financial and Laurentian Bank Securities; Kemess per FS (Mar. 23, 2016) at Consensus pricing ; Kemess East per PEA (May 29, 2017) at Base-case pricing; and Corporate Outflow per analyst consensus

Slide 12 - 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 13 - 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 18 –1) Gold equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb Cu

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 28 - 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 36 – 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 39 –1) Gold equivalent calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.75/lb Cu