BUILDING QUÉBEC’S FIRST DIAMOND MINERenard Updated Mine Plan and Mineral Reserve Estimate Support Materials, March 30, 2016

2

Forward-Looking Information

This presentation contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation. This information and these statements, referred to herein as “forward-lookingstatements”, are made as of the date of this presentation and the Corporation does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements, except asrequired by law. These forward-looking statements include, among others, statements with respect to our beliefs, plans, objectives, expectations, anticipations, estimates and intentions.Although management considers these assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available to it, they may prove to be incorrect.

Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect current expectations or beliefs regarding future events and include, but are not limited to, statements withrespect to: (i) the amount of Mineral Reserves, Mineral Resources and exploration targets; (ii) the amount of future production over any period; (iii) assumptions relating to recovered grade,average ore recovery, internal dilution, mining dilution and other mining parameters set out in the March 2016 Updated Renard Mine Plan and Mineral Reserve Estimate ; (iv) assumptionsrelating to gross revenues, operating cash flow and other revenue metrics set out in the 2016 Updated Renard Mine Plan and Mineral Reserve Estimate; (v) mine expansion potential andexpected mine life; (vi) the expected time frames for the completion of construction, start of mining and commercial production at the Renard Diamond Project and the financial obligations orcosts incurred by Stornoway in connection with such mine development; (vii) the expected time frames for the completion of the open pit and underground mine at the Renard DiamondProject; (viii) future market prices for rough diamonds; and (ix) future market prices for liquefied natural gas and diesel. All statements, other than statements of historical fact regardingStornoway or the Renard Diamond Project, are forward-looking statements. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans,projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “plans”, “projects”, “estimates”, “assumes”,“intends”, “strategy”, “goals”, “objectives”, “schedule” or variations thereof or stating that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or beachieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements are made based upon certain assumptions by Stornoway or its consultants and other important factors that, if untrue, could cause the actual results, performancesor achievements of Stornoway to be materially different from future results, performances or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. Such statements and information arebased on numerous assumptions regarding present and future business prospects and strategies and the environment in which Stornoway will operate in the future, including the price ofdiamonds, anticipated costs and Stornoway’s ability to achieve its goals, regulatory developments, development plans, exploration, development and mining activities and commitments.Although management considers its assumptions on such matters to be reasonable based on information currently available to it, they may prove to be incorrect. Certain importantassumptions by Stornoway or its consultants in making forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: (i) required capital investment; (ii) the amount of future production over anyperiod; (iii) assumptions relating to recovered grade, average ore recovery, internal dilution, mining dilution and other mining parameters set out in the March 2016 Updated Renard Mine Planand Mineral Reserve Estimate ; (iv) assumptions relating to gross revenues, operating cash flow and other revenue metrics set out in the 2016 Updated Renard Mine Plan and MineralReserve Estimate ; (v) estimates of net present value; (vi) anticipated timelines for completion of construction, commencement of mine production and development of an open pit andunderground mine at the Renard Diamond Project, (vii) anticipated geological formations; (viii) Stornoway’s interpretation of the geological drill data collected and its potential impact on statedMineral Resources, Mineral Reserves, and mine life; and (ix) Stornoway’s ability to draw on the financing elements of the Renard Diamond Project Financing Transactions closed on July 8th,2014.

By their very nature, forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, both general and specific, and risks exist that estimates, forecasts, projections and other forward-looking statements will not be achieved or that assumptions do not reflect future experience. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on these forward- looking statements as a numberof important risk factors could cause the actual outcomes to differ materially from the beliefs, plans, objectives, expectations, anticipations, estimates, assumptions and intentions expressed insuch forward-looking statements. These risk factors may be generally stated as the risk that the assumptions and estimates expressed above do not occur, including the assumption in manyforward-looking statements that other forward-looking statements will be correct, but specifically include, without limitation: (i) risks relating to variations in the grade, kimberlite lithologies andcountry rock content within the material identified as Mineral Resources from that predicted; (ii) variations in rates of recovery and breakage; (iii) changes in development or mining plans dueto changes in other factors or exploration results; (iv) slower increases in diamond valuations than assumed; (v) risks relating to fluctuations in the Canadian dollar and other currencies relativeto the US dollar; (vi) increases in the costs of proposed capital and operating expenditures; (vii) increases in financing costs or adverse changes to the terms of available financing, if any; (viii)tax rates or royalties being greater than assumed; (ix) risks relating to the receipt of regulatory approvals; and (x) the additional risks described in Stornoway's most recently filed AnnualInformation Form, annual and interim MD&A and Stornoway's anticipation of and success in managing the foregoing risks. Stornoway cautions that the foregoing list of factors that may affectfuture results is not exhaustive, and new, unforeseeable risks may arise from time to time.

3

Forward-Looking Information (continued)

The Renard Diamond Project, December 23, 2015

Readers are referred to the technical report dated as of March 30, 2016 entitled “Updated Renard Diamond Project Mine Plan and Mineral Reserve Estimate, Québec, Canada” in respect ofthe March 2016 Updated Mine Plan and Mineral Reserve Estimate, and the technical report dated January 11, 2016 and press release dated September 24, 2015 in respect of theSeptember 2015 Mineral Resource estimate for further details and assumptions relating to the project.

The Qualified Persons that prepared the technical reports and press releases that form the basis for the presentation are listed in the Company’s AIF dated March 30, 2016. Disclosure of ascientific or technical nature in this presentation was prepared under the supervision of Patrick Godin, P.Eng. (Québec), Chief Operating Officer and Robin Hopkins, P.Geol. (NT/NU), VicePresident, Exploration, both “qualified persons” under NI 43-101. Darrell Farrow, PrSciNat, P.Geo.(BC), Ordre des geologues du Quebec (Special Authorisation # 332) of GeoStratConsulting Services Inc. is the independent Qualified Person responsible for preparation of the mineral resource estimate for the Renard Diamond Project. GeoStrat Consulting Services Inc,a mineral resources consultancy, focuses on client interaction and involvement in developing resource models, and has experience in exploration, geological modeling, resource evaluation,production, resource reconciliation and accounting of diamond deposits around the globe. GeoStrat has verified the results disclosed herein with respect to the mineral resources, and hasconducted appropriate verification on the underlying data, including visitations to the Renard site and the primary process laboratories.

4

Chronology of Renard StudiesFeasibility Study (Nov 2011. NI 43-101 Technical Report Dec 2011)

11 Year Mine Plan based on 18 million carat Mineral Reserve derived from January 2011 NI 43-101 Resource.

Long Term Business Plan

Companion study to the Feasibility Study with an extended mine plan incorporating the project`s Inferred Mineral Resources. Basis of mine design and permitting

Optimization Study (Jan 2013. NI 43-101 Technical Report Mar 2013)

Refined Feasibility mine design, including shaft deferral and a modified underground mining sequence.

11 Year Mine Plan based on 17.9 million carat Mineral Reserve.

Mineral Resource Update (July 2013)

Resource update with 14% increase in Indicated Resource contained carats

LNG Feasibility Study (Oct 2013)

Modified project Cap-ex and Op-ex for LNG powered gen-sets

Mineral Resource Update (Sep 2015. NI 43-101 Technical Report Oct 2015)

Resource update with 11% increase in Indicated Resource contained carats

Updated Mine Plan and Mineral Reserve Estimate (Mar 2016. NI 43-101 Technical Report Mar 2016)

Update based on 2013 & 2015 Mineral Resource Updates, accelerated construction schedule, and expanded processing

14 Year Mine Plan based on 22.3 million carat Mineral Reserve

5What has Changed? January 2013 Optimization Study to March 2016 Updated Mine PlanR65 Added to Mine Plan

2013 Resource Update additional Indicated Mineral Resources at Renard 65.

R65 pit was contemplated in 2013 Optimization Study. Material will represent expansion ore to the current mine plan.

R2 Reserve Extends down to 700m

2015 Resource Update added additional Indicated Mineral Resources at Renard 2 between 600m to 700m depth.

Ramp will be extended down 710 meters depth to extract additional Renard 2 ore.

CRB Material Added to Reserve

2015 Resource Update added additional low grade Indicated Mineral Resources from Renard 2 CRB and CRB2a material within the envelope of the Renard 2-Renard 3 open pit and the Renard 2 underground mine.

Material was assumed as zero-grade waste in 2013 Optimization Study. Now represents a low grade stockpile for plant expansion and/or processing at end of mine life.

Mine Life Extension and Plant Expansion

Mineral Reserve based mine life from 11 years to 14 years

Plant expansion from 2.16 Mt/a (6,000 tpd) to 2.52 Mt/a (7,000 tpd) starting in 2018 utilizing Renard 65 ore.

Upside Elements not Included in New Mine Plan

13.4 million carats of Inferred Mineral Resources (24.5 million tonnes at 54 cpht) and 33.0 to 71.1 million carats of non-resource exploration upside (76.2 to 113.2 million tonnes at grades ranging from 25 to 168 cpht).

Large diamond recovery

6Renard Diamond Project NI 43-101 Mineral Resource EstimateEffective September 24 2015. Changes to Previous Estimate Shown in Italics

Notes1 Resource categories were completed in accordance with the "CIM DefinitionStandards on Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are notmineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.2 Totals may not add due to rounding.3 Carats per hundred tonnes. Estimated at a +1 DTC sieve size cut-off.4 Diamond valuation data utilized for the test of prospects of reasonable economicextraction are derived from a diamond valuation exercise undertaken in March2014 (see Stornoway Annual Information Form dated July 2015).

Indicated Mineral Resources(1,2,4)

Contained Carats (millions) Tonnes (millions) Grade (cpht)(3)

Renard 2, All Units 21.58 +15.6% 25.70 +38.3% 84 -16.4%Renard 2, w/o CRB-2A, CRB 20.39 +11.0% 20.52 +15.9% 99 -4.3%

CRB-2A 0.29 +2.6% 0.90 +2.6% 32 --CRB 0.90 n/a 4.28 n/a 21 n/a

Renard 3 1.86 +2.3% 1.82 +3.4% 102 -1.0%Renard 4 4.44 +3.0% 7.25 -- 61 +3.0%Renard 65 2.30 -- 7.87 -- 29 --

Total Indicated Mineral Resources 30.17 +11.4% 42.63 +20.2% 71 -7.4%

Inferred Mineral Resources(1,2)

Contained Carats (millions) Tonnes (millions) Grade (cpht)(3)

Renard 2, All Units 3.88 -48.0% 6.59 -44.0% 59 -7.2%Renard 2, w/o CRB 3.36 -46.1% 4.08 -22.0% 82 -30.9%CRB 0.53 -57.6% 2.51 -61.6% 21 +10.5%

Renard 3 0.61 -- 0.54 -- 112 --Renard 4 2.46 +3.5% 4.75 -- 52 +3.5%Renard 65 1.18 -- 4.93 -- 24 --Renard 9 3.04 -- 5.70 -- 53 --Lynx 1.92 -- 1.80 -- 107 --Hibou 0.26 -- 0.18 -- 144 --

Total Inferred Mineral Resources 13.35 -20.8% 24.49 -17.5% 54 -4.0%

Inferred Mineral Resources

Indicated Mineral Resources

High Range TFFE

Renard 65775m depth

Renard 4775m depth Renard 9

775m depth

Renard 21,250m depth Renard 3

1,250m depth

North East View

7Renard Diamond Project Exploration PotentialEffective September 24 2015. Changes to Previous Potential Shown in Italics

Notes1 Target for Further Exploration: representspotential upside that can be reasonablyassumed given the nature and grade of materialwithin the current 2015 Mineral Resource. TheRenard 2 shape has been projected 250mbelow the deepest kimberlite intersection at1,000m depth. Tonnage and grade ranges arenot directly applicable to potential totalcarats.The potential quantity and grade of anyExploration Target is conceptual in nature, therehas been insufficient information to define amineral resource, and it is uncertain if furtherexploration will result in the target beingdelineated as a mineral resource.2 Carats per hundred tonnes. Potential at a +1DTC sieve size cut-off.

NotesResource categories were completed in accordance with the "CIM DefinitionStandards on Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are notmineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Area indicated in yellow represents a gap in drill coverage that may representadditional exploration potential outside of the current Mineral Resource Estimateand not included in the current Targets for Further Exploration.

Renard 65775m depth

Renard 4775m depth Renard 9

775m depth

Renard 21,250m depth Renard 3

1,250m depth

Inferred Mineral Resources

Indicated Mineral Resources

High Range TFFE

North East View

Targets for Further Exploration(1)

Contained Carats (millions)

Tonnes (millions) Grade (cpht)(2)

Renard 1 1.7 to 3.9 8.6 to 13.0 20 to 30

Renard 2, All Units 3.7 to 15.5 6.1 to 15.5 60 to 100

Renard 3 3.6 to 6.3 3.4 to 3.8 105 to 168

Renard 4 5.6 to 11.8 11.1 to 15.4 50 to 77

Renard 65 7.3 to 13.5 29.0 to 40.9 25 to 33

Renard 7 1.9 to 3.8 6.3 to 9.4 30 to 40

Renard 9 2.0 to 4.3 3.9 to 6.3 52 to 68

Renard 10 0.7 to 2.1 1.2 to 1.7 60 to 120

Lynx 3.0 to 3.8 3.1 to 3.2 96 to 120

Hibou 3.6 to 6.1 3.5 to 4.0 104 to 151

Total TFFE 33.0+28% to 71.1

+40%76.2

+49% to 113.2+51%

R10 R7 R1 R65

R4 R9

R2R3

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Mine Plan: 14 years of mining on 22mcarat Mineral Reserve (33mtonnes)

Permitting and 2013 Long Term Plan

The Vision: Deposit still Open

Millions of Tonnes TFFE High Range

Inferred Mineral Resource

TFFE Low Range

Indicated Mineral Resource

The Renard Diamond ProjectA Large, High Value Diamond Resource with a Very Long Mine Life Potential

0m

100m

200m

400m

900m

700m

500m

300m

Grades illustrated are for Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources respectively at a +1DTC sievesize cut-off. Reserve and Resource categories are compliant with the "CIM Definition Standards onMineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not havedemonstrated economic viability. The potential quantity and grade of any Exploration Target(previously referred to as a “Potential Mineral Deposit”) is conceptual in nature, and it is uncertain iffurther exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.

Renard 6529/24cpht

Renard 3102/112cpht

Renard 461/52cpht Renard 9

53cpht

Renard 284/59cpht

800m

600m

1100m

1200m

1000m

30 mcarat Indicated Mineral Resource

13 mcarat Inferred Mineral Resource

33-71 mcarat TFFE

Mineral Resource Estimate Effective September 24, 2015 (NI 43-101)

9Renard 2 Mineral Resource UpdateEffective September 24 2015. Changes to Previous Estimate Shown in Italics

Pipe shape at surface (1.89ha)

High TFFE at 1,250m (1.38ha)

Notes1 Reserve and Resource categories were completed in accordance with the "CIM Definition Standardson Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not havedemonstrated economic viability.2 Totals may not add due to rounding.3 Carats per hundred tonnes. Estimated at a +1 DTC sieve size cut-off.4 Diamond valuation data utilized for the test of prospects of reasonable economic extraction arederived from a diamond valuation exercise undertaken in March 2014 (see Stornoway AnnualInformation Form dated July 2015).

0m

700m

850m

1250m

INDICATED

INFERRED

TFFE

600m: Base of Previous Indicated Mineral Resources

Depth Below

SurfaceKimberlite

outlineat surface (0.75ha)

Low TFFE at 1,250m (0.62ha)

Base of New Indicated

Resources (1.55ha)

Indicated Mineral Resources(1,2,4)

Contained Carats (millions) Tonnes (millions) Grade (cpht)(3)

Renard 2, All Units 21.58 +15.6% 25.70 +38.3% 84 -16.4%Renard 2, w/o CRB-2A, CRB 20.39 +11.0% 20.52 +15.9% 99 -4.3%

CRB-2A 0.29 +2.6% 0.90 +2.6% 32 --CRB 0.90 n/a 4.28 n/a 21 n/a

Inferred Mineral Resources(1,2)

Contained Carats (millions) Tonnes (millions) Grade (cpht)(3)

Renard 2, All Units 3.88 -48.0% 6.59 -44.0% 59 -7.2%Renard 2, w/o CRB 3.36 -46.1% 4.08 -22.0% 82 -30.9%CRB 0.53 -57.6% 2.51 -61.6% 21 +10.5%

Target for Further Exploration(1)

Contained Carats (millions)

Tonnes (millions) Grade (cpht)(2)

Renard 2, All Units 3.7 to 15.5 6.1 to 15.5 60 to 100

North View Renard 2 NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate

Renard 2 Targets for Further Exploration

Notes1 Represents potential upside that can be reasonably assumed given the nature and grade of materialwithin the current 2015 Mineral Resource. The potential quantity and grade of any Exploration Target isconceptual in nature, there has been insufficient information to define a mineral resource, and it isuncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.2 Carats per hundred tonnes. Potential at a +1 DTC sieve size cut-off.

Pinch in model in area lacking drill

coverage

10Renard 2 Geological Model and Unit GradesEffective September 24 2015. Changes to Previous Estimate Shown in Italics

Within the Indicated Mineral Resources

Average Grade (cpht)(1)

Average Dilution (%)(2)

Kimb 2a (“Blue”) 76 +3.0% 52 -0.9%Kimb 2b (“Brown”) 145 +1.0% 30 -0.9%Kimb 2c (HK)3 229 +0.5% 12 -3.1%CRB-2a 32 -- 93 --CRB 21 n/a 96 n/a

Within the Inferred Mineral Resources

Average Grade (cpht)(1)

Average Dilution (%)(2)

Kimb 2a (“Blue”) 67 -2.4% 65 +9.2%Kimb 2b (“Brown”) 145 +0.3% 30 +1.5%Kimb 2c (HK)3 229 +0.5% 12 -3.1%CRB 21 +10.5% 96 --

Notes1 Carats per hundred tonnes. Estimated at a +1 DTC sieve size cut-off.2 Represents the average amount of non-diamond bearing country rockestimated within each geological unit.3 The Kimb 2c (Hypabyssal Kimberlite, or “HK”) unit is a constituent componentof each of the Kimb2a, Kimb2b, CRB and CRB-2a units.

Renard 2 Average Mineral Resource Grades, by Geological Unit

Kimb2b (“Brown”)

Kimb2a (“Blue”) CRB CRB-2a Kimb2c (HK)

West View

Contact

Pinch in model in area lacking drill coverage

0m

700m

850m

1250m

INDICATED

INFERRED

TFFE

600m: Base of Previous Indicated Mineral Resources

Depth Below

Surface

North View

Photographs of geological units from

the 2007 Renardunderground bulk

sample program

11Renard 2 Geological Model and Renard 2-Renard 3 ConvergenceEffective September 24 2015

Pipe shape at surface (1.89ha)

Kimberlite outlineat surface (0.75ha)

Kimb2b (“Brown”)

Kimb2a (“Blue”)

CRBCRB-2a

Surface View, Looking Down

Surface View, Looking Down

0m

700m

850m

1250m

R2 INDICATED

R2 INFERRED

R2 TFFE

Depth Below

Surface

R3 INDICATED

R3 INFERRED

R3 TFFE

North East View

Resource categories were completed in accordance with the "CIM Definition Standardson Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves donot have demonstrated economic viability. The potential quantity and grade of anyExploration Target is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient information todefine a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the targetbeing delineated as a mineral resource.

Renard 2 Renard 3

Renard 2

Renard 3

126.6m R3 intersection in DDH R2-81J (in red) starting 942.2m downhole: 47m true width.

R3 TFFE: >500m potential between drill intersections

12March 2016 Updated Mine PlanA Combined Open Pit and Underground Mine

Tonnes of ore per meter of

development. Main ramp excluded

Combined open pit and underground mining

Open pit mining R2-R3 2015 to 2018, processing from 2016

Open pit mining R65 2014 to 2029, processing from 2018

Four production levels in R2 underground mine, one in R4 and one in R3.

Underground mining R2 2018 to 2027 (steps 1-4) using blasthole shrink stoppage with panel retreat.

Underground mining R3 and R4 2026-2029 (steps 5 and 6) using longhole stoping and blasthole stoppage respectively.

Stopes Ore t/m

1 R2-290 836

2 R2-470 781

3 R2-590 897

4 R2-710 940

5 R3-250 448

6 R4-270 680

13

March 2016 October 2016 December 2016 August 2017 December 2017 End of April 2018

March 2016 Updated Mine PlanA Combined Open Pit and Underground Mine

2.58 Mcarats (4.33 Mtonnes at 59cpht)

15.5 Mtonnes moved

Stripping ratio (Waste to Ore): 2.54

Depth 130m

Renard 2-Renard 3 Open Pit (2015-2018)

March 2018 End 2018 End 2019 End 2021 End 2024 End 2027

1.38 Mcarats (4.58 Mtonnes at 30cpht)

14.0 Mtonnes moved

Stripping ratio (Waste to Ore): 2.11

Depth 155m

Renard 65 Open Pit (2014-2029)

14NI 43-101 Probable Mineral ReservesMarch 30, 2016

Probable Mineral Reserve(1,2,4)

(Changes from January 2013 Probable Mineral Reserve estimate shown in italics)Mining Recovery Factors Utilized in

the Reserve Calculation

Carats (millions) Tonnes (millions) Grade (cpht)(3)

Mining Dilution(5)

Internal Dilution(6)

Mining Recovery

Open PitRenard 2, All Units 1.85 49% 3.54 170% 52.2 -45% 2.9% 0.0% 98%

Renard 2 1.38 11% 1.49 14% 92.7 -2% 1.7% 0.0% 98%CRB-2A 0.15 n/a 0.47 n/a 31.4 n/a 1.8% 0.0% 98%CRB 0.32 n/a 1.58 n/a 20.2 n/a 4.3% 0.0% 98%

Renard 3 0.73 9% 0.79 10% 92.3 -1% 11.4% 0.0% 98%Renard 4 -- n/a -- n/a -- n/a -- -- --Renard 65 1.38 n/a 4.58 n/a 30.1 n/a 3.5% 0.0% 98%

OP Probable Mineral Reserves 3.96 107% 8.91 339% 44.4 -53% 3.9% 0.0% 98%

UndergroundRenard 2 15.65 15% 19.68 16% 79.6 -1% 20.2% 6.4% 82%Renard 3 0.86 2% 1.22 22% 70.2 -16% 14.0% 29.8% 85%Renard 4 1.67 6% 3.46 -7% 48.3 15% 14.0% 2.2% 78%Renard 65 -- n/a -- n/a -- n/a -- -- --

UG Probable Mineral Reserves 18.18 13.4% 24.36 12.0% 74.6 1% 18.9% 6.7% 82%

StockpileStockpile 0.11 n/a 0.15 n/a 73.9 n/a -- -- --

Total Probable Mineral Reserves 22.26 24.0% 33.42 40.5% 66.6 -11.3% 14.8% 4.9% 86%

Notes1 Reserve categories follow the CIM Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.2 Totals may not add due to rounding.3 Carats per hundred tonnes. Estimated at a +1 DTC sieve size cut-off.4 Diamond valuation data utilized for the test of prospects of reasonable economic extraction are derived from a diamond valuation exercise undertaken in March 2014 (see Stornoway AnnualInformation Form dated March 2016).5Represents the proportion of waste rock expected to be extracted during mining. Mining dilution is assumed to have zero grade.6Represents planned dilution of waste rock through stope design in the underground mine.7Represents mine and stockpiled ore as of December 31, 2015

15NI 43-101 Probable Mineral ReservesMarch 30, 2016

Kimb2a/Kimb2b

35%CRB-2A4%

CRB8%Renard 3

18%

Renard 6535% Renard 2,

All Units47%

Carats

Open-Pit Probable Mineral Reserves

Underground Probable Mineral Reserves

Kimb2a/Kimb2b

17%

CRB-2A5%

CRB18%

Renard 39%

Renard 6551%

Renard 2, All Units

40%

Tonnes

Renard 286%

Renard 35%

Renard 49%

Carats

Renard 281%

Renard 35%

Renard 414%

Tonnes

Reserve categories are compliant with the "CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves".

16Mine Production ProfileMineral Reserve Case. Not Including Inferred Mineral Resources or Non-Resource Upside

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Tonnes

UG R3

UG R4

UG R2

OP R65

OP R2/R3

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Carats

R65

R4

R3

CRB

CRB2A

R2

17Mine Production ProfileMineral Reserve Case. Not Including Inferred Mineral Resources or Non-Resource Upside

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Gross Revenue (C$ millions)

Renard 65

Renard 4

Renard 3

Renard 2

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Carat Sales (000s)

Renard 65

Renard 4

Renard 3

Renard 2

Notes: Gross Revenue expressed in real terms.

18

97.00

85.71

66.4562.55

68.7373.09

77.81 78.74 79.6076.64

74.01

61.18

50.61

33.02

20.23

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Grad

e (C

PHT)

Annual Plant Feed Tonnage and Recovered Grade

R65

R4

R3

CRB

CRB2A

R2

Grade

Mine Production ProfileMineral Reserve Case. Not Including Inferred Mineral Resources or Non-Resource Upside

19

Nameplate capacity of 6,000 tpd (2.16 Mt/a) based on 78% plant utilization.

60% of nameplate scheduled for December 31, 2016 (commercial production) and 100% for June 2017.

Expansion to 7000 tpd (2.52 MT/a) is scheduled for 2018 based on 83.5% utilization and +2% throughput.

Large Diamond Recovery (“LDR”) through TOMRA XRT.

Flow sheet:• Primary jaw crushing to < 230mm• Twin DMS circuits at +1mm -19mm• LDR circuit at +19mm -45mm,

scalable to -60mm• Oversize +45mm to secondary cone

crusher• LDR and DMS tails +6mm -19mm to

tertiary High Pressure Grinding Rolls

Thickening and centrifugal treatment of fines and tails to create a truckableproduct for dry-stack disposal.

Diamond Processing Plant

20

Ramp Up Schedule

35,154

82,005

108,000

126,000 135,000

145,801

162,000 171,000

180,000 180,000 180,000

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000 M

10-2

016

M11

-201

6

M12

-201

6

M1-

2017

M2-

2017

M3-

2017

M4-

2017

M5-

2017

M6-

2017

M7-

2017

M8-

2017

MIL

L FE

ED

(T)

Process Plant Ramp Up

100% NameplateCapacity

Commercial Production60% Nameplate Capacityfor 30 days

21

Key Assumptions and ValuationJan 2013 Opt. Study, before

Stream1,2

2016 Mine Plan Update,

after Stream1,2

Mining Parameters

Reserve Carats (M) 17.9 22.3Tonnes Processed (M) 23.8 33.4Recovered Grade (cpht) 75 67Average Ore Recovery (%) 83% 86%Average Mining Dilution (%) 18% 15%Processing Rate (Mtonnes/annum) 2.2 2.2 to 2.5Mine Life (years) 11 14

Cost Parameters

Initial Cap-ex (C$M)3 $793 ($811)6 $775LOM Cap-ex (C$M)3 $1,013 $1,045Diesel Price (C$/litre) $1.14 $1.00LOM Op-ex (C$/tonne)4 $57.63 $56.20LOM Op-ex (C$/carat)4 $76.63 $84.37

Revenue Parameters4

Gross Revenue (C$M) $4,268 $5,565Net Revenue (C$M) $4,069 $4,555Marketing Costs 2.70% 1.80%DIAQUEM Royalty 2.00% 2.00%Cash Operating Margin (C$M) $2,693 $2,677% Operating Margin 67% 59%Cash Operating Margin (C$/carat) $151 $120Income Tax and Mining Duties (C$M) $625 $698After Tax Net Cash Flow (C$M) $1,084 $1,105

Diamond Price Parameters

Average Price of Reserve (US$/carat)5 $180 $155Diamond Price Escalation 2.50% 2.50%Exchange rate 1C$=1US$ 1.35C$=1US$

Schedule Parameters

Effective Date for NPV Calculation Jan. 1 2013 Jan. 1 2016Plant Commissioning Commences Dec. 1 2015 Oct. 1 2016Commercial Production Declared June 1 2016 Dec. 31 2016

Jan 2013 Opt. Study, before

Stream1,2

2016 Mine Plan Update, after

Stream1,2

Pre-Tax After Tax Pre-Tax After

TaxNPV5% $894 $537 $1,558 $1,113

NPV7% $683 $391 $1,349 $974

Notes

1. March 2016 study shown net of the July 2014 RenardStreaming Agreement, Diaquem royalty and marketing costs in terms of net revenue, Cash Operating Margin and NPV. For further information on the Renard Streaming Agreement see the Stornoway Annual Information Form dated March 30, 2016

2. January 2013 Optimization expressed in October 2012 terms. March 2016 Updated Mine Plan expressed in December 2015 terms.

3. Expressed in nominal terms, and excluding Renard Mine Road capital of $69.4 million.

4. Expressed in real terms. 5. Represents the average price per carat of the Mineral Reserve

before escalation, comprising Renards 2,3 & 4 expressed in May 2011 terms in the case of the January 2013 Optimization Study, and Renards 2, 3, 4 & 65 expressed in March 2016 terms in the case of the March 2016 Mine Plan Update.

6. Initial Capital Cost in the January 2013 Optimization Study was estimated at $793 million based on $752 million of cost and contingency plus $41 million escalation allowance. In April 2014, prior to the commencement of construction, Initial Capital was estimated at $811 million based on $754 million of cost and contingency plus $57 million of escalation. The estimate of $775 million of Initial Capital in the March 2016 Updated Mine Plan includes all costs, contingencies and escalation allowances and represents a reduction of $36 million on the April 2014 estimate.

7. Net-present valuations are presented net of all royalties, costs incurred under the Mecheshoo Agreement and, in the case of the March 2016 Updated Mine Plan, the effective revenue impairment associated with the Renard diamond streaming agreement, and on an un-levered basis.

Valuation Parameters (C$)7

22

Jan 2013 Opt. Study, before

Stream1,2

2016 Mine Plan Update, after

Stream1,2

Total Operating Cost (C$M)3 $1,352 $1,878

Ore Production (Mt) 23.8 33.4

Diamond Production (Mct) 17.9 22.3

Production CostC$57.63/t C$56.20/t

C$76.63/ct C$84.37/ctTotal Gross Revenue (C$M) $4,268 $5,565Total Net Revenue (C$M) $4,069 $4,555Marketing Costs (%) 2.7% 1.8%DIAQUEM Royalty (%) 2.0% 2.0%Cash Operating Margin (C$M) $2,693 $2,677% Operating Margin 67% 59%Operating Margin (C$/ct) $151.05 $120.04

Life of Mine Operating Parameters

$97 , 5%

$613 , 33%

$568 , 30%

$600 , 32%

Operating Expenses (C$M and % of OPEX)

Open Pit Mine

UndergroundMine

Concentrator

G&A andInfrastructure

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Operating Expenses (C$M)

G&A andInfrastructureConcentrator

UndergroundMineOpen PitMine

Notes

1. March 2016 study shown net of the July 2014 Renard Streaming Agreement, Diaquem royalty and marketing costs in terms of net revenue, Cash Operating Margin and NPV. For further information on the Renard Streaming Agreement see the Stornoway Annual Information Form dated March 30, 2016

2. January 2013 Optimization expressed in October 2012 terms. March 2016 Updated Mine Plan expressed in December 2015 terms.

3. Expressed in December 2015 real terms.

23Operating Cost Estimate WaterfallFrom November 2011 Feasibility Study to March 2016 Updated Mine Plan

$54.71 $2.92

-$3.79

$2.36 $56.20

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

FS Nov 2011 OS Jan 2013 LNG FS Oct2013

Updated MinePlan Mar 2016

Current Mar2016

Cash Operating Cost/Tonne (C$)

$84.37

$5.04

$70.27 $6.36

$12.78

$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70$80$90

FS Nov 2011 OS Jan 2013 LNG FS Oct2013

Updated MinePlan Mar 2016

Current Mar2016

Cash Operating Cost/Ct (C$)

Notes: Expressed in December 2015 real terms

24Capital ExpendituresProject Costs of $548.5 million Committed or Incurred to Dec 31 2015

Initial Capital

Site Preparation & General $ 45.1

Mining $ 57.1

Mineral processing plant $ 137.7

Onsite utilities and infrastructures $ 111.1

Network and Distribution $ 15.9

Offsite utilities and infrastructures $ 0.3

Pre-production and Ramp-up $ 88.5

Project indirect costs $ 153.9

Professional Services $ 44.6

Construction indirect costs $ 38.5

Contingency $ 57.5

Escalation $ 25.3

Total Initial Capital $ 775.4

Sustaining and Deferred Capital

Open Pit $ 16.1

Underground $ 222.5

Process Plant $ 12.5

Admin. & Infrastructure $ 3.7

Power Plant and Airport $ 13.7

Total Sustaining/Deferred Capital $ 268.5

Total LOM Capital $ 1,045

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Capital Costs, 2016 to 2030 (C$M)

Initial Capital

Underground

Open pit

Power Plant &AirportAdm. & Infra.

Process plant

Notes: expressed in December 2015 nominal terms and excluding Renard Mine Road capital of $69.4 million. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Sustaining and Deferred Capital Costs(C$M and %)

Open pit

Process plant

Adm. & Infra.

Power Plant &Airport

Underground

2016 Initial Capital equals $282 million

25Initial Capital Cost Estimate WaterfallFrom November 2011 Feasibility Study to March 2016 Updated Mine Plan

$1,045.0

$2.9$994.4 $18.5 $35.0

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

$1,100

FS Nov 2011 OS Jan 2013 LNG FS Oct2013

Updated MinePlan Mar 2016

Current Mar2016

Renard LOM Capex (C$ millions)Including Contingencies and Escalation

$775.4$61.9

$35.6

$859.1

$1.9 $11.9

$500

$550

$600

$650

$700

$750

$800

$850

$900

FS Nov2011

OS Jan2013

LNG FS Oct2013

ExecutionPlan Apr

2014

UpdatedMine PlanMar 2016

Current Mar2016

Renard Initial Capex (C $millions)Including Contingencies and Escalation

11 Year Mine Life 14 Year Mine Life

Notes: Expressed in December 2015 nominal terms and excluding Renard Mine Road capital of $69.4 million. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

26

Financial Analysis Methodology & Assumptions

The Financial Analysis of the Updated Renard Mine Plan is based on the following assumptions:• Commercial production January 1st, 2017, 14 year Mineral Reserve Based life of mine;• “Spot” diamond pricing based on the March 2014 WWW base case diamond price models for Renard

2, 3, 4 and 65 adjusted based on an estimated -19% world average rough diamond price decrease between March 2014 and March 2016;

• Diamond price escalation of 2.5% per annum from March 2016 until the end of 2028. • Flat C$/US$ exchange rate of C$1.35 per US$;• 15 week cycle between production and sales, 10 sales per year; and• Real terms operating costs, revenue and cash flow, nominal terms capex.

NPV 7% is C$974 million after-Tax, C$1,349 million Pre-Tax.• Effective date is January 1, 2016.• NPV is calculated after the Diaquem Royalty, the effective revenue impairment of the Renard

Streaming Agreement, and costs associated with the Mecheshoo Agreement, and on an unlevered basis.

• Given that much of the capital cost is now sunk, current estimates of internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period are not considered meaningful.

Not considered in the Financial Analysis:• 13.4 mcarats of Inferred Mineral Resources (24.5 mtonnes at 54 cpht) and 33.0 to 71.1 mcarats of

non-resource exploration upside (76.2 to 113.2 mtonnes at grades ranging from 25 to 168 cpht).• Large diamond recovery.• Additional plant utilization above 83.5% (achieved at 7,000 tpd or 2.52 Mtonnes/a).

27

Diamond Price Assumptions

Average life-of-mine pricing is US$185/ct or C$250/ct, or US$159/ct or C$214/ct after stream.• The Financial Analysis assumes a 2.5% real terms diamond price escalation between 2016 abnd 2028• The Renard Streaming Agreement includes a payment of US$56 per carat on 20% of ROM production from Renards 2,3,4,9

and 65, Life-of-mine, escalating at 1% per annum after the 3rd anniversary of production, inclusive of marketing costs.

The weighted average price of the March 2016 Probable Mineral Reserve is US$155/ct, or C$209/ct, in March 2016 terms

Body March 2014 Diamond Price Model1 (US$/carat)

Estimated Market PriceAdjustment March 2014

to March 2016

Adjusted Price Estimates March 2016: “Spot” Price Models2

(US$/carat)

Renard 2 $197(High $222, Min $178)

-19%

$160(High $181, Min $145)

Renard 3 $157(High $192, Min $146)

$128(High $156, Min $119)

Renard 4 $106 ($155)3

(High $174, Min $100)$86 ($126)3

(High $141, Min $81)

Renard 65 $187(High $190, Min $160)

$152(High $155, Min $130)

Notes

1. As determined WWW International Diamond Consultants Ltd. at a +1 DTC sieve size cut off.2. As determined by applying the world average rough price index of roughrices.com to the March 2014 price models, at a +1 DTC sieve size cut-off. 3. Should the Renard 4 diamond population prove to have a size distribution equal to the average of Renard 2 and 3, WWW have estimated that a

base case diamond price model of US$155 per carat would apply based on March 2014 pricing, equivalent to US$126 per carat on a market price adjusted basis to March 2016.

28Revenue WaterfallFrom January 2013 Optimization Study to March 2016 Updated Mine Plan

$4,555

$800

$773

$4,069

$260

$574

$1,225

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

OS Jan 2013 Stream Impact Spot DiamondPricing

Addition of R65 Addition of R2to 710m Depth

Exchange Rate Updated MinePlan Mar 2016

Net Revenue (C$ millions)

Notes: Revenue is net of royalties, marketing costs, and (for the March 2016 Updated Mine Plan) the July 2014 Renard Streaming Agreement

29Financial AnalysisCash Flow

Notes: Expressed in real terms. Payables and cash as of December 31, 2015 are included in 2016 Net FCF

($200)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

($50)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Net Free Cash Flow (C$ millions)

Net FCF Cumulative Net FCF

30Financial AnalysisValuation Sensitivities

80% 90% 100% 110% 120%Revenue $621 $799 $974 $1,144 $1,313Operating Cost $1,104 $1,038 $974 $906 $837Capital Cost $1,037 $1,004 $974 $941 $909

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Afte

r Tax

NP

V 7

%

(C$

Milli

on)

Revenue Operating Cost Capital Cost

80% 90% 100% 110% 120%Revenue $784 $1,065 $1,349 $1,629 $1,913Operating Cost $1,572 $1,459 $1,349 $1,236 $1,123Capital Cost $1,440 $1,392 $1,349 $1,302 $1,255

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Pre

Tax

NP

V 7

%

(C$

Milli

on)

Revenue Operating Cost Capital Cost

31Financial AnalysisAfter Tax Valuation Sensitivities: Diamond Price Assumptions

Notes

1. Grey shading presents base case assumption2. Represents “High” and “Minimum” sensitivities based on alternate interpretations of diamond quality and potential value when estimating a ‘Base” diamond price model. High, Base

and Minimum models are from the March 2014 WWW diamond pricing exercise, adjusted by -19% by Stornoway applying the world average rough price movement between March2014 and March 2016 (as published by Roughprices.com which is based, in large part, on WWW market assortments) to the March 2014 diamond price models (Table 19-3). Thechoice of “Minimum” and “High” to describe the sensitivity limits is deliberate: in the view of WWW International Diamond Consultants it is highly unlikely that an actual diamond priceachieved for each kimberlite ore body upon production would fall below the “Minimum” sensitivity, but it is possible that the actual diamond price achieved may be higher than the“High” sensitivity, which is not a maximum price.

3. Represents the March 2014 WWW base case diamond price models, with no diamond price escalation.

Real C$ 000, After TaxDiamond Price

Scenarios2 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

WWW High $1,902 $1,526 $1,329 $1,166 $1,095 $970WWW Base $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $806WWW Low $1,324 $1,058 $919 $803 $753 $664March 2014

No Escalation3 $1,672 $1,357 $1,191 $1,052 $991 $884

Real C$ 000, After TaxDiamond PriceEscalation Rate 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

0.00% $1,207 $974 $851 $749 $704 $6251.25% $1,398 $1,122 $978 $858 $805 $7132.50% $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $8063.75% $1,825 $1,452 $1,258 $1,098 $1,028 $9055.00% $2,070 $1,641 $1,418 $1,234 $1,154 $1,014

32Financial AnalysisAfter Tax Valuation Sensitivities: F/X and Energy Costs

Real C$ 000, After TaxExchange Rate$1.35 C$/US$ 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

$1.49 90% $1,889 $1,518 $1,324 $1,162 $1,092 $969$1.42 95% $1,738 $1,393 $1,213 $1,063 $998 $883$1.35 100% $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $806$1.28 105% $1,480 $1,179 $1,022 $891 $835 $735$1.22 110% $1,366 $1,084 $937 $815 $762 $669

Real C$ 000, After Tax

Energy 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

80% $1,647 $1,318 $1,146 $1,004 $942 $83390% $1,625 $1,300 $1,130 $989 $927 $819

100% $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $806110% $1,580 $1,261 $1,095 $957 $897 $792120% $1,557 $1,242 $1,077 $941 $882 $777

Notes

1. Grey shading presents base case assumption

33Financial AnalysisAfter Tax Valuation Sensitivities: OPEX, CAPEX

Real C$ 000, After Tax

OPEX 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

-20% $1,801 $1,445 $1,259 $1,104 $1,037 $918-10% $1,701 $1,362 $1,185 $1,038 $974 $8620% $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $806

10% $1,502 $1,197 $1,038 $906 $849 $74820% $1,397 $1,111 $961 $837 $783 $689

Real C$ 000, After Tax

CAPEX 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

-20% $1,663 $1,343 $1,176 $1,037 $976 $870-10% $1,631 $1,310 $1,143 $1,004 $943 $8370% $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $806

10% $1,573 $1,249 $1,081 $941 $880 $77320% $1,542 $1,218 $1,049 $909 $848 $741

Notes

1. Grey shading presents base case assumption. OPEX in December 2015 real terms. CAPEX in December 2015 nominal terms

34Financial AnalysisAfter Tax Valuation Sensitivities: Gross Revenue and Grade

Real C$ 000, After TaxGross

Revenue2 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

-20% $1,067 $838 $719 $621 $578 $503-10% $1,336 $1,061 $917 $799 $747 $6560% $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $806

10% $1,865 $1,496 $1,304 $1,144 $1,074 $95120% $2,128 $1,712 $1,494 $1,313 $1,234 $1,095

Real C$ 000, After Tax

Grade 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 8.0% 10.0%

-20% $1,119 $880 $756 $654 $609 $532-10% $1,363 $1,082 $937 $816 $763 $6710% $1,604 $1,281 $1,113 $974 $913 $806

10% $1,840 $1,476 $1,286 $1,127 $1,058 $93720% $2,079 $1,671 $1,458 $1,281 $1,204 $1,067

Notes

1. Grey shading presents base case assumption.2. Gross Revenue represents the potential of Large Diamond Recovery resulting in an achieved $/carat sales result above plan. NPV (7%) valuations are after tax, after stream, and

unlevered.