Brucejack Project – Technical SessionFebruary 2014

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

Forward Looking Information

This Presentation contains “forward-looking information” and “forward looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities legislation. Forward-looking information may include, but is not limited to, the preliminary mill results from processing the 426585E cross-cut, the preliminary mill results from the bulk sample program, the estimated gold to be produced from the bulk sample program, the estimated contained gold in the 426585E cross-cut from the sample tower, the anticipated production and developments in our operations in future periods, information with respect to our planned exploration and development activities, the adequacy of our financial resources, the estimation of mineral reserves and resources including the 2013 Valley of the Kings Mineral Resource estimate, realization of mineral reserve and resource estimates and timing of development of our Brucejack Project, costs and timing of future exploration, results of future exploration and drilling, production and processing estimates, capital and operating cost estimates, timelines and similar statements relating to the economic viability of the Brucejack Project, timing and receipt of approvals, consents and permits under applicable legislation, our executive compensation approach and practice, the composition of our board of directors and committees and adequacy of financial resources. Wherever possible, words such as “plans”, “expects”, “projects”, “assumes”, “budget”, “strategy”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “intends”, “targets” and similar expressions or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative forms of any of these terms and similar expressions, have been used to identify forward-looking statements and information. Statements concerning mineral reserve and resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute forward-looking information to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that will be encountered if the property is developed. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking information. Forward-looking information is subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking information, including, without limitation, those risks identified in our Annual Information Form dated March 18, 2013 filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and in the United States on Form 40-F through EDGAR at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Forward-looking information is based on the expectations and opinions of our management on the date the statements are made. The assumptions used in the preparation of such statements, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be imprecise. We do not assume any obligation to update forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by applicable law. For the reasons set forth above, prospective investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.

National Instrument 43-101

Technical and scientific information contained herein relating to the Projects is derived from National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) compliant technical reports (“Reports”) “Mineral Resources Update Technical Report” dated December 19, 2013 and “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC” dated June 21, 2013. We have filed the Reports under our profile at www.sedar.com. Technical and scientific information not contained within the Reports for the Projects have been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Kenneth C. McNaughton, P.Eng. and Ian Chang, P.Eng., each of whom is an independent “qualified person” under NI 43-101.

This presentation uses the terms “measured resources”, “indicated resources” (together “M&I”) and “inferred resources”. Although these terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations (under NI 43-101), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. There is no guarantee that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves.

In addition, “inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre feasibility studies, or economic studies, except for a Preliminary Assessment as defined under NI 43-101. Investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.

Currency

Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar values herein are in Canadian $. 2

Ivor JonesBSc (Hons), Macquarie University;

MSc University of Queensland;

FAusIMM (CP)

Executive Consultant, Snowden Mining Industry Consultants

Mr Jones has more than 25 years experience in the mining industry. Since graduating in 1984, he has worked in mining (gold, copper, nickel), exploration and resource evaluation (gold, including coarse gold, silver, PGEs, copper, iron ore, REEs and nickel and other commodities).

Companies include BHP Engineering, WMC Resources Ltd and Anvil Mining Limited (and juniors).

Since first joining Snowden in April 2001, Mr Jones has consulted in mineral resource projects globally, and has specialist skills in project management, evaluation and review, geostatistics, resource evaluation, extensional exploration, grade control and reconciliation studies.

TODAY’S PRESENTERS

3

TODAY’S PRESENTERS

4

Warwick Board, Ph.D., P.Geo, MAusIMM, Pr.Sci.Nat.Chief Geologist

Dr. Board has over 17 years of global experience as a professional geologist. He was most recently Senior Resource Geologist at Silver Standard Resources Inc., where he was involved with the structural assessment and initial non-linear resource modeling of the high grade gold mineralization at the Brucejack Deposit. Prior to Silver Standard, he was Principal Consultant at Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc. Dr. Board holds Bachelor of Science (Honours), Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in geology from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, as well as a Citation in Applied Geostatistics from the University of Alberta. Dr. Board is a registered professional geoscientist with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and a registered professional with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions.

Mr. Torpy has over 17 years of experience developing underground mines in remotes areas. Mr. Torpy manages both the mining portion of the Brucejack Feasibility Study and the Operations group at Brucejack. Mr. Torpy was previously Project Mine Engineer with Silver Standard Resources where he managed the mining portion of various studies for projects in Mexico and South America. As Chief Mine Engineer Coeur d’ Alene Mines’ Kensington Project Mr. Torpy managed the detailed engineering and site operations for the underground development program during construction of the mine. As Operations Engineer at Teckcominco’s Pogo Mine, he helped to manage the operation of a remote camp and underground development program and work on the feasibility study. He has also been Project Engineer for JS Redpathduring a shaft excavation project in Wyoming. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Montana Tech.

Kevin TorpyDirector, Mine Engineering

Agenda Brucejack’s geology as it relates to resource estimation (Board)

Resource estimation and nuggety gold deposits (Jones)

Multiple Indicator Kriging (MIK) (Jones)

Valley of the Kings resource estimation (Jones)

2013 Bulk Sample Outcomes (Board)

December 2013 Resource estimate (Jones)

Mining the Valley of the Kings (Torpy)

Next steps, Q&A5

BRUCEJACK GEOLOGY – OVERVIEW

Intermediate sulfidation epithermal gold-silver deposit― Stockwork vein-hosted system

― Active island arc

― Alkaline porphyry associated

Key age dates― 198-180 Myr ago – Host rock sequence formation

― 191-184 Myr ago – Mineralization

― ~110 Myr ago - Deformation

Myr = Million Years

6

BRUCEJACK GEOLOGY - STRUCTURE

7

Fragmental

Volcanic Rocks

N S

200 m

Polylithic

ConglomerateIntensely Silicified

Conglomerate

Hbl-phyric

Latite Flow

Siltstone, litharenite,

pebble conglomerate

Plag.-Kfs.-Phyric

Latite Flow

Valley of the

KingsWest Zone

Mineralized

Corridors

CONFIRMATION OF GEOLOGICAL MODEL

8

Modelled lithologies and contacts

Corridors of stockwork mineralization

Folded stratigraphy

Multiple overprinting vein generations

Visible electrum

― Stockwork association

― Alteration association

― Spatial distribution – resource blocks

Continuity

― Along strike

― Across strike

― Vertical

Post-mineral deformation

― Folds, thrust faults, wrench faults

― Late veins

426555ERound 7W

East Raise –615 Lateral

Cleo North Raise426660E

West Wall

East-West part ofsystem

East-West part of system

North-South part of system

East-West part ofsystem

BULK SAMPLE AREA - GEOLOGY

9

Cleopatra is considered part of the stockwork system

DEFORMED STOCKWORK MINERALIZATION

10

BULK SAMPLE AREA – DEFORMED VEINS

11

Snowden Mining Industry Consultants

A leading service provider founded in 1987

Offices in Perth, Brisbane, Johannesburg, Vancouver, Calgary,

London, Belo Horizonte

Services focused on mining related activities:

– Resource evaluation

– Mining engineering

– Geotechnical engineering

– Corporate services

– Mining /geology related software

12

Common estimation methods

Linear techniques

― Inverse Distance methods (Power 0, 1, 2, 3)

― Ordinary Kriging (OK)

Other techniques

― Indicator Kriging (including MIK and Med IK) - a non-

parametric method

― Uniform Conditioning (mathematical manipulation of OK

estimates)

13

Selecting an estimation technique

based on grade data population

no skew mixedpositive skew negative skew

Ordinary kriging

Indicator kriging

Indicator kriging Indicator kriging Indicator kriging if

spatially integrated

14

Indicator Kriging

Indicator Kriging is a common technique

— Originated out of Stanford University (Journel, 1983)

— Non-parametric

— Not a linear technique

— Suitable for skewed and mixed statistical datasets

As in all resource estimation methods, it can be applied

poorly – care is required

The definition of geological domains is still important

15

Where has MIK been used for operating

mines?

Deposit Company Country Date(1) Mine Type

Porgera deposit Barrick Gold Corp. Papua N.G. December 2011 Underground to

Open Pit

Cadia Hill Newcrest Mining Ltd. Australia February 2013 Open Pit

Telfer – Main Dome Newcrest Mining Ltd. Australia February 2013 Open Pit

Telfer – West Dome Newcrest Mining Ltd. Australia February 2013 Open Pit

Telfer – VSC Newcrest Mining Ltd. Australia February 2013 Underground

Bonikro Newcrest Mining Ltd. Ivory Coast February 2013 Open Pit

Wafi Newcrest Mining Ltd. Papua N.G. February 2013 Open Pit

Peak Gold Mines New Gold Inc. Australia January 2009 Underground

Tiriganiaq (Meliadine) Comaplex Minerals Corp. Canada February 2010 Underground

McKinnons Gold Deposit Burdekin Resources Ltd. Australia 1995 Open Pit

Agbaou Gold Project Endeavour Mining Corp. Ivory Coast May 2012 Open Pit

Blagodatnoye Gold Deposit ZAO Polyus Russian Fed. November 2008 Open Pit

Ban Houayxai PanAust Ltd. Laos December 2012 Open Pit

(1) Effective date of Mineral Resource as of most recent technical report

Note: non-inclusive list 16

Indicator Kriging

Indicator data transform

data indicator transform

2.8 1.6

2.8

0.7

0.7 0.5

1.3 2.28.1

0.95

threshold

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

select

indicator

original

0.5

0.7

0.7

1.3

1.6

2.2

2.8

2.8

8.1

0.95 threshold

Proportion = 3/9 = 0.33

Grade below = 0.63

Grade above = 3.13

Ave grade = 2.3

0.33*0.63 +(1-0.33)*3.13

17

Indicator Kriging

Selecting indicator thresholds

log histogram log probability plot18

Indicator Kriging

Indicator data transform

data Indicator transform

2.8 1.6

2.8

0.7

0.7 0.5

1.3 2.28.1

0.95

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

3.2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

select indicators

original

0.5

0.7

0.7

1.3

1.6

2.2

2.8

2.8

8.1

1.9

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

indicator

0.95

1.9

3.2

19

Indicator Kriging

Indicator statistics

data select indicators inter-percentile statistics

2.8 1.6

2.8

0.7

0.7 0.5

1.3 2.28.1

indicator

0.95

1.9

3.2

interval

0 to 0.95

0.95 to 1.9

1.9 to 3.2

> 3.2

mean

0.63

1.45

2.60

8.10

median

0.70

1.45

2.80

8.10

20

Indicator Krigingpr

obab

ility

(%

)

Grade

0.00 -

0.63 -

1.00 -

0.40 -

|

0.95

|

1.90

|

0.00

0.87 -

|

3.20

|

maximum

Estimated probabilities

• Indicator kriged estimate = sum of (sample value x probability)21

Ave grade =

0.4 * 0.63

+

0.23 * 1.45

+

0.24 * 2.60

+

0.13 * 8.10

= 2.26

Valley of the Kings - High-grade

mineralisation is consistent

23

Coarse gold mineralisation at

Valley of the Kings

23

Drill holeVisible gold mineralisation

Valley of the Kings data

24

Statistic Gold g/t Silver g/t

Samples79,699 79,699

Minimum0.00 0.25

Maximum16,552 9,383

Mean2.57 8.59

Standard deviation69.54 41.94

CV27.03 4.88

Variance4,836 1,759

Summary statistics of 1.5m composited data for mineralized domains – VOK

Estimation methodology – Valley

of the Kings

25

1. Define low grade / high grade definition limit

2. Separate the lower grade ‘background’ population from the higher grade population

3. Estimate grade of lower grade component using ordinary kriging

4. Estimate grade of higher grade component using multiple indicator kriging (MIK)

5. Estimate proportion of high grade component using indicator kriging

6. Recombine low grade and high grade estimates using estimated proportions

7. Grade estimate validation and classification

8. Grade tabulation

Steps:

Steps 1,2: Summary statistics –

VOK

26

Low grade

population

High grade

population

Step 3: Low grade population –

VOK

27

Step 4: High grade population –

VOK

28

PercentileCut-off grade

Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)

10 5.75 55.51

20 6.813 60.79

30 8.191 67.3

40 10.58 76.37

50 14.05 89.81

60 20.12 109.1

70 34.31 137.9

80 72.54 190

90 211.4 317

95 503 549.6

Indicator thresholds for MIK

Step 4,5: High grade proportion –

VOK

29

Step 4,5: High grade population –

VOK

30

Step 6: Final grade estimate

Low grade population estimate * Probability of block being low grade

+

High grade population estimate * Probability of block being high grade

31

Step 6: Combined model – VOK

32

Step 7: Model validation – visual

review

33

December 2013 Mineral Resource - oblique view

Step 7: Model validation - statistical

34

Mineralized domain

Gold (g/t) Silver (g/t)

Number of samples79,699 79,699

Composite mean2.57 8.59

Estimated mean2.36 8.23

December 2013 Mineral Resource estimate – data validation

BULK SAMPLE AREA – DENSE DRILLING

35

IMPACT OF DRILLING DIRECTION

36

Au (g/t)

<0.5

0.5-1.0

1.0-5.0

5.0-20.0

>20.0

N

25 m

MILL VS. TOWER – 426585E EXAMPLE

37

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Go

ld g

rad

e (

g/t

)

Round number

Min

Max

Calculated mill feed grade

Tonnes Au (g/t) Oz. Au

Mill2,167*

4.03 281

Sample tower 2.08 145

*Based on dry tonnage from mill

Figure 9.7 from Mineral Resources Update Technical Report 19 December 2013

MILL VS. TOWER – 426585E EXAMPLE

38

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24G

old

gra

de (

g/t

)Round number

Min

Max

Calculated mill feed grade

4265

85 E

BULK SAMPLE – MILL & MODEL RESULTS

39

DriveMill

November 2012

Mineral Resource

December 2013

Mineral Resource

Tonnes Au (g/t) Au (oz) Tonnes Au (g/t) Au (oz) Tonnes Au (g/t) Au (oz)

426555E 1,416 4.41 201 1,491 4.89 234 1,481 3.97 189

426645E 1,875 2.28 137 1,959 5.64 355 1,987 3.26 208

426585E 2,169 4.02 280 2,231 12.12 869 2,269 2.35 171

426615E 2,878 39.35 3,642 3,089 18.88 1,876 3,127 15.74 1,582

615L 1,964 25.52 1,611 1,535 38.78 1,914 1,574 38.42 1,945

Final clean out 52.0

Total 10,302 17.88 5,923 10,305 15.84 5,248 10,438 12.20 4,096

Direct comparisons at crosscut level are only guidelines:– Mineral Resource block size is 10 mE x 10 mN x 10 mRL (approximately 2,700 t

per block)

– Round size is 4 mE x 2.7 mN x 3.5 mRL (approximately 100 t per round)

– Cannot assume grade homogeneity throughout block

(1)From Mineral Resources Update Technical Report 19 December 2013

Table 14.10 December 2013 Mineral Resource versus November 2012 Mineral Resource and Mill results by bulk sample crosscut(1)

Model MillTop cut (Au g/t)

No top cut 2000 1500 700 85

ID1 5,923 8,313 4,626 3,931 2,755 837

ID2 5,923 8,541 4,716 4,007 2,807 826

ID3 5,923 8,351 4,640 3,963 2,811 810

OK 5,923 6,932 3,925 3,440 2,582 790

December 2013

Mineral Resource4,096

BULK SAMPLE – OK, ID VERSUS MILL(1)

40

Table 14.12 Ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted estimated versus Mill results by bulk sample drive – total gold ounces

Table 14.13 Ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted estimated versus Mill results by bulk sample drive – grade details

(1)From Mineral Resources Update Technical Report 19 December 2013

Model MillTop cut (Au g/t)

No top cut 2000 1500 700 85

ID1 16.08 28.78 15.99 13.59 9.51 2.86

ID2 16.08 29.57 16.31 13.85 9.69 2.82

ID3 16.08 28.91 16.05 13.70 9.71 2.77

OK 16.08 24.00 13.58 11.90 8.92 2.71

December 2013

Mineral Resource12.20

Confirmed the geological model

The results of mapping in the bulk sample area were consistent with the November 2012 Mineral Resource estimate

Facilitated parameter optimization for December 2013 Mineral Resource estimate

Increased confidence in the Valley of the Kings Mineral Resources

KEY POINTS – BULK SAMPLE OUTCOMES

41

Changes between 2012 & 2013 –

Fine tuning the estimation parameters

42

Use of bulk sample results to fine tune estimation parameters

Testwork to look at different techniques and constraints

Refinement of search parameters for estimates

Reduction in smoothing (reblocking)

Additional drilling and bulk sample (including reconciliation)

December 2013 Mineral Resource

classification

43

NS

Section showing December 2013 Mineral Resource blocks colour-coded by Classification

Inferred IndicatedMeasured

(see next slide)

December 2013 Mineral Resource

classification - Measured

44

NS

Detail of section

showing

December 2013

Mineral Resource

blocks colour-

coded

by Classification

Indicated

Measured

~10m

December 2013

Mineral Resource(1,4,5,6)

45

Valley of the Kings - Mineral Resource >5g/t AuEq

(1) Mineral Resources which are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially

affected by environmental, permitting, legal, marketing, or other relevant issues. The Mineral Resources were reported using the Canadian Institute of Mining,

Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee

on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council.

(2) The quantity and grade of reported Inferred resources in this estimation are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these

Inferred Resources as an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an Indicated or

Measured Mineral Resource category.

(3) Contained metal and tonnes figures in totals may differ due to rounding.

(4) The Mineral Resource estimate stated in Table 14.25 and Table 14.26 is defined using 5 m by 5 by 5 m blocks in the well drilled portion of West Zone

(5 m by 10 m drilling or better) and 10 m by 10 m by 10 m blocks in the remainder of West Zone and in VOK.

(5) The gold equivalent value is defined as AuEq = Au + Ag/53.

(6) Mineral Resource Update Technical Report 19 December 2013.

46

Category Tonnes

(millions)

Gold

(g/t)

Silver

(g/t)

Contained(3)

Gold

(Moz)

Silver

(Moz)

Measured 2.4 5.85 347 0.5 26.8

Indicated 2.5 5.86 190 0.5 15.1

M+I 4.9 5.85 267 0.9 41.9

Inferred(2)

4.0 6.44 82 0.8 10.6

West Zone Mineral Resource >5g/t AuEq

(1) Mineral Resources which are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially

affected by environmental, permitting, legal, marketing, or other relevant issues. The Mineral Resources were reported using the Canadian Institute of Mining,

Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee

on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council.

(2) The quantity and grade of reported Inferred resources in this estimation are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these

Inferred Resources as an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an Indicated or

Measured Mineral Resource category.

(3) Contained metal and tonnes figures in totals may differ due to rounding.

(4) The Mineral Resource estimate stated in Table 14.25 and Table 14.26 is defined using 5 m by 5 by 5 m blocks in the well drilled portion of West Zone

(5 m by 10 m drilling or better) and 10 m by 10 m by 10 m blocks in the remainder of West Zone and in VOK.

(5) The gold equivalent value is defined as AuEq = Au + Ag/53.

(6) Mineral Resource Estimate Update Technical Report 19 December 2013.

December 2013

Mineral Resource(1,4,5,6)

Comparison of November 2012

and December 2013 Mineral

Resource estimates – VOK(1)

Grade Contained metal

Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver

(millions) (g/t) (g/t) (Moz) (Moz)

Nov-12 Indicated 16.1 16.4 14.1 8.5 7.3

Inferred 5.4 17 15.7 2.9 2.7

Dec-13 Measured 2 19.3 14.4 1.2 0.9

Indicated 13.4 17.4 14.3 7.5 6.1

M + I 15.3 17.6 14.3 8.7 7.0

Inferred 5.9 25.6 20.6 4.9 3.9

47(1) See notes slide 47

Key Points – December 2013

Mineral Resource estimate

48

Confirms global robustness of November 2012 estimate – little changed

― M&I contained metal effectively the same

― More selective estimate (slightly higher grade for slightly less tonnes)

Conservative

― Drilling orientation under-sampling N-S structures

― Revised estimation parameters calibrated to production

Increased Confidence

― Reconciliation to production data

― Definition of Measured Mineral Resource

― Increased understanding of mineralization

― Confirmation of geological model

WHY LONGHOLE STOPING AT BRUCEJACK?

Longhole Open Stoping (LHOS) selected at Brucejack because:

Vein stockwork conducive to bulk mining

Steeply dipping orebody

Extensive orebody

Probable reserves over:

― >550 m of vertical extent in VOK

― >450 m of strike length

― Inferred resource beyond those limits

49

Fragmental

Volcanic Rocks

Polylithic

Conglomerate

Volcanic

Sediment

50 m

N

PLAN VIEW: 2013 UG DRILLING

Completed Underground

Development

Completed Bulk Sample

Legend

>20

Key (g/t Au)

Assay intervals

5.0-20.0

2.5-5.0

Silicified

Conglomerate

Volcanic Flows

OTHER REASONS LHOS IS SUITABLE

Stable rock in ore, hangingwall, and footwall

Adaptable to a variety of stope widths

Allows for scheduling flexibility due to multiple stopes on multiple horizons being available

Conventional mining method and equipment

High production rate provides lower operating costs

Backfill placement helps to maximize recovery of the reserve and reduce surface impacts

51

EXAMPLES OF LHOS MINES WORLD WIDE (1)

Goldex, Agnico Eagle, Quebec

LaRonde, Agnico Eagle, Quebec

Red Lake, Goldcorp, Ontario

Musselwhite, Goldcorp, Ontario

Casa Berardi, Hecla, Quebec

Kensington Mine, Coeur d’Alene Mines

Greens Creek Mine, Hecla, Alaska

Chukar Mine, Newmont, Nevada

Miekle, Barrick, Nevada

Cortez Hills, Barrick, Nevada

Tanami, Newmont, Northern Territory, Australia52(1) Long hole stoping may not necessarily be the only method employed at these operations

LIFE OF MINE PLAN

53Oblique view facing west

West Zone

Valley of the Kings

Infrastructure Area

Portals

VALLEY OF THE KINGS LONG SECTION

54

View Facing South

Ramp

Footwall Level Drives

Stope Blocks

LONG HOLE STOPING TERMINOLOGY

55

Primary stopes bounded by rock on both sides

Secondary stopes bounded by backfill on one or both sides

30 m level spacing

Maximum of 45 m stope lengths

15 m widths

TOP CUT CENTER DRIVE

56

The mucking level was previously established during the excavation of the previous stope

A drift is driven across the center of the drift using a jumbo drill

Two Boom Jumbo

CENTER DRIVE CABLE BOLTING

57

The center of the stope is supported using cable bolts in ordered to provide a stable span after the stope is fully excavated

Cable Bolter

SLASHING COMPLETE

58

Full width slashing allows for parallel drilling rather than ring drilling

Parallel drilling provides cleaner walls which helps to control dilution and improve recovery

SLOT RAISE DRILLING

59

Because the stope is confined by rock on all sides, an opening must be excavated to allow rock movement and volume swell during the blasts

Accomplished by excavating a slot raise, then a full width slot

Several methods of accomplishing this

Now viewing from the hanging wall

SLOT DRILLING

60

Once the slot raise is complete, the slot is drilled off

The drilling is completed using a long hole drill

Long Hole Drills

PRODUCTION BLASTING

61

Once completed, the more efficient production blasting can begin

The production blasts are shot into the void created by the slot

Again, the ore is mucked from the lower level using remote control LHD’s

FILL BARRICADE CONSTRUCTED

62

Once the stope is fully mucked out, a fill barricaded is constructed

The barricade prevents backfill from running into the level before it has cured

Viewing from the footwall

BACKFILL PLACEMENT

63

High strength mucking sill pour provides a harder surface for mucking the next stope up

Reduces ore losses from LHD’s driving over ore

Reduces dilution from the LHD bucket digging up backfill

HighStrength

Plug

MainPour

High Strength Plug

MINING THE VALLEY OF THE KINGS(1)

Primarily Transverse Longhole Open Stoping with cemented paste backfill

Longitudinal Longhole Open Stoping in some areas

Dilution Factors

– Primary Stopes: 7%

– Secondary Stopes: 15%

Mining Recovery Factors

– Primary Stopes: 97.5%

– Secondary Stopes: 92.5%

Avg. 12 stopes in the mining & backfill cycle at any time

(1)See Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC dated June 21, 2013 64

MINING: MINERAL RESERVES SUMMARY(1)

65

Mineral Reserve at $180/t NSR Cutoff Grade

Ore Grade Contained Metal

Tonnes Au Ag Au Ag

(Mt) g/t g/t g/t g/t

Proven - - - - -

Probable 15.1 13.6 11.0 6.6 5.3

Subtotal 15.1 13.6 11.0 6.6 5.3

Proven 2.0 5.7 309.0 0.4 19.9

Probable 1.8 5.8 172.0 0.3 10.1

Subtotal 3.8 5.8 243.0 0.7 30.0

Proven 2.0 5.7 309.0 0.4 19.9

Probable 17.0 12.8 28.0 7.0 15.4

Total 19.0 12.0 58.0 7.3 35.3

Valley

of the

Kings

West Zone

Total

Mil oz Mil oz

(1)See Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC dated June 21, 2013. The June 2013 Feasibility Study will be amended using the December 2013 Valley of the Kings Mineral Resource estimate.

MILESTONES TO PRODUCTION

66

2013

Completed Feasibility Study (June)

Updated Resource Estimate (December)

H1 2014

File Environmental Assessment Certificate Application

Amend Feasibility Study

H2 2014/ 2015

Anticipate Environmental Assessment Certificate

Mine construction

2016

Commission, ramp-up, commercial production at Brucejack Gold Mine

PERMITTING PROCESS

67

Scope and Process for

Review determined

1st Public Comment

Period

Application Submitted

Application evaluated for completeness

Application review, 2nd

Public Comment

Period

Assessment Report

Referral to Ministers

January 2013

Five Open Houses inNovember

2013

Target submitting by

March 31, 2014

(30 days) (Review stage 180 days)

Project Description

Filed

Project Decision by Ministers

(Decision 45 days)

BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) manages it

Federal review coordinated by Federal Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) for relevant areas

Provincial and Federal reviews are coordinated

For more information on assessment process: www.eao.gov.bc.ca/ea_process.html

THE NEXT SIX MONTHS:

68

Q1 2014

File 43-101 Technical Report for December 2013 Mineral Resource estimate update

Processing 1,000 tonnes of high-grade ore from 2013 exploration program

Plan for excavation of additional 1,000 tonnes of high-grade ore

File Environmental Assessment Certificate application

Q2 2014

Amend Feasibility Study

Plan underground exploration program

Potential production of additional 1,000 tonnes of high-grade ore

Q & A

69

Appendix

70

71

APPENDIX: BRUCEJACK LOCATION

220km Terrace

Red Chris

Mt Milligan

0.5-5.0 g/t AuEq

5.0-15.0 g/t AuEq

>15.0 g/t AuEq

Key

72

APPENDIX: 2013 BULK SAMPLE

N S

West Zone

UndergroundDevelopment

Valley of the Kings Bulk Sample

200 m

546 m

100 m 200 m 300 m400 m

500 m

10,000 tonne bulk sample from Valley of the Kings

Selection based on representative geology, mineralisation, drill spacing density, run of mine material and grade distribution of the November 2012 Indicated mineral resource

Successfully confirmed geological interpretation of the deposit to date

APPENDIX: BULK SAMPLE - PLANNED

73

APPENDIX: BULK SAMPLE - MINED

74

APPENDIX: BULK SAMPLE AREA - GEOLOGY

75

APPENDIX: CLEOPATRA STRUCTURE

76

The Cleopatra structure is considered as being part of the broader stockwork mineralization system:

― No obvious cross-cutting relationships

― Dominant E-W and subordinate N-S structures appear to merge

― No differences in style of mineralization, gangue mineralogy, and associated alteration between the E-W and N-S components of the stockwork system

― Similar abundance of dendritic electrum in both E-W and N-S structures

― Both E-W and N-S structures appear to have formed coevally – imprinted on rocks of Lower Jurassic age, cut by post-mineral dykes of Lower Jurassic age

― Both E-W and N-S structures display similar styles and degrees of deformation

The presence of N-S structures in the stockwork is not unexpected:― Both the dominant E-W and subordinate N-S structures are present throughout

the bulk sample area, as well as in surface outcrop

The Cleopatra structure is interpreted as one of probably a whole series of variably oriented higher fluid flow conduits in the overall stockwork system

APPENDIX: BRUCEJACK ECONOMICS

77

(1) Source: Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, (Tetra Tech) dated June 21, 2013(2) Base case metals prices of US$1,350 /oz gold and US$20/oz silver(3) Includes by-product cash costs, sustaining capital, exploration expense and reclamation cost accretion(4) The June 2013 feasibility study is based on the November 2012 Mineral Resource estimate for the Brucejack Project and will

be amended in 2014.

June 2013 Feasibility Study Highlights(1,2,4) :

Processing rate 2,700 tonnes per day

Mine life 22 years

Total gold production 7.1 million oz

Average annual gold production 425,700 ounces (years 1-10)321,500 ounces (life of mine)

Average gold grade 14.2 g/t (years 1-10)12.0 g/t (life of mine)

All-in sustaining cash cost per oz(3) $508/oz

Capex (including contingencies) US$663.5 million

Total operating costs C$156.46/t milled

Internal Rate of Return 42.9% (pre-tax)35.7% (post-tax)

Net Present Value (5% discount)

US$2.69 billion (pre-tax)US$1.76 billion (post-tax)

COMMON SHARESTSX/NYSE:PVG

Issued: 105 millionFully diluted: 114.8 million52-week hi/low: $11.17/$2.83Market cap: $656 million (at February 6, 2014)

Advancing a major high-grade gold project in Canada

CONTACT

Phone: 604-558-1784Fax: 604-558-4784Toll-free: 1-877-558-1784invest@pretivm.comwww.pretivm.com

HEAD OFFICE

Pretium Resources Inc.570 Granville St.Suite 1600Vancouver, BCCanada V6C 3P1