VALUE THROUGH GOLD: INVESTORS DAY

VALUE THROUGH GOLD
Investors Day
April 4, 2019

2
Cautionary Statement
Forward-Looking Information
This Presentation contains “forward-looking information” and “forward looking statements” “future oriented financial information” and/or “financial outlooks”
within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities legislation (collectively herein referred to as “forward-looking statements” or “forward-
looking information”). The purpose of disclosing future oriented financial information and financial outlooks is to provide a general overview of management’s
expectations regarding the anticipated results of operations and costs thereof and readers are cautioned that future oriented financial information and financial
outlook may not be appropriate for other purposes. Wherever possible, words such as “plans”, “expects”, “guidance”, “projects”, “assumes”, “budget”, “strategy”,
“scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “intends”, “modeled’, “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. 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 statements. Forward-
looking information may include, but is not limited to, information with respect to: the estimation of Mineral Reserves and Resources, including the 2019 updates
thereto; realization of Mineral Reserve and Resource estimates; our estimated life of mine and life of mine plan for the Brucejack Mine; production and processing
estimates; capital and operating cost estimates and timing thereof; estimated economic results of the Brucejack Mine, including net cash flow and net present value;
the expected grade of gold produced; predicted metallurgical recoveries for gold and silver; the ramp-up of the Brucejack Mine to 3,800 tonnes per day production
rate, including capital modifications and upgrades, underground development, and estimated expenditures and timelines in connection therewith; our planned
mining, exploration and development activities and the costs and timing thereof; timelines and similar statements relating to the economic viability of the Brucejack
Mine, including mine life, total tonnes mined and processed and mining operations; production and cost guidance; grade reconciliation, updated geological
interpretation and mining initiatives with respect to the Brucejack Mine; our operational strategy; our future operational and financial results, including estimated
cash flows, and the timing thereof; payment of our debt and other obligations, including the source of funds and timing thereof; the future price of gold and silver;
our liquidity and the adequacy of our financial resources; our intentions with respect to our capital resources; results of future exploration and drilling; timing, receipt,
and anticipated effects of, and anticipated capital costs in connection with approvals, consents and permits under applicable legislation; litigation matters;
environmental matters; our effective tax rate and the recognition of our previously unrecognized income tax attributes; and statements regarding United States dollar
cash flows, currency fluctuations and the recurrence of foreign currency translation adjustments. Statements concerning Mineral Resource estimates may also be
deemed to constitute forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors
that could cause actual events or results to materially differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, those
related to: the accuracy of our Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates (including with respect to size, grade and recoverability) and the geological, operational and
price assumptions on which they are based; uncertainties relating to Inferred Mineral Resources being converted into Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources;
commodity price fluctuations, including gold price volatility; general economic conditions; the inherent risk in the mining industry; significant governmental
regulations, and such other risks uncertainties and factors as are identified in Pretivm’s Annual Information Form dated March 28, 2019, Form 40-F dated March 28,
2019, Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 and other disclosure documents as filed in Canada on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com and in the United States through EDGAR at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov (collectively, the “Pretivm Disclosure Documents”). Our forward-
looking statements are based on the assumptions, beliefs, expectations and opinions of management on the date the statements are made, many of which may be
difficult to predict and beyond our control. In connection with the forward-looking statements contained in this Presentation, we have made certain assumptions
about our business, including about our exploration, development and production activities, and the results, costs and timing thereof; timing and receipt of approvals,
consents and permits under applicable legislation; the geopolitical, economic, permitting and legal climate that we operate in; the price of gold and other
commodities; exchange rates; market competition; the adequacy of our financial resources, and such other material assumptions as are identified in the other Pretivm
Disclosure Documents. We have also assumed that no significant events will occur outside of our normal course of business. Although we believe that the
assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date the statements are made, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of
future performance and, accordingly, undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. We do not assume any obligation
to update forward-looking statements, 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 shouldnot place undue reliance on forward-lookingstatements.

3
Notes to Investors
National Instrument 43-101
Technical and scientific information contained herein relating to the Projects is derived from Pretivm’s updated Mineral Reserve and Resource and Life of Mine
Plan dated April 4, 2019, which is based on the company’s National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure of Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) – technical report
(the “2019 Report”) prepared by Tetra Tech,, which shall be filed in Canada under Pretivm’s profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and in the United States on the
EDGAR section of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) website at www.sec.gov, within the coming weeks.
The following Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101 are independent of Pretivm and responsible for the 2019 Report, and each has reviewed and approved the
scientificand technical information containedin this Presentation relatingto his or her respective scope of responsibility, as applicable:
Qualified Person Scope of Responsibility
Ivor W.O. Jones, M.Sc., P.Geo., FAusIMM (CP) Geology andMineral Resources
Mark Horan, P.Eng, MSc.
Tetra Tech
Mineral Reserves, Mining Methods; Underground Infrastructure; Paste
Backfill Distribution; Mining Operating Cost Estimate; Financial Analysis
John Huang, Ph.D, P.Eng.
Tetra Tech
Metallurgy andRecovery Methods; Market Studies; Process, G&A and Site
Service Operating Cost Estimates
Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng., M.A.Sc.
Tetra Tech
Surface Infrastructure; Cost Estimate
Maritz Rykaart, PhD, P.Eng.
SRK
Waste Rock and Tailings Storage Facility
Rolf Schmitt, M.Sc., P.Geo.
ERM
Aspects of environmental, social, communitystudies, andpermitting
Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng., M.A.Sc.
Tetra Tech
Capital Cost Estimate
Alison Shaw, Ph.D., P.Geo.
Lorax
Geochemistry, Water Quality
Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo.
BGC Engineering Inc.
Water Management
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Hydrogeology
Cathy Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng.
UndergroundMine Geotechnical
Ed Carey, P.Eng
Site Geotechnical

4
Notes to Investors
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 SEC 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 InferredResource exists or is economically or legallymineable.
Cautionary Note to United Stated Investors
Technical disclosure contained in this Presentation has not been prepared in accordance with the requirements of United States securities laws and uses terms that
comply with reporting standards in Canada with certain estimates prepared in accordance with NI 43-101. NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian
Securities Administrators that establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource estimates contained in this Presentation have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101
and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Classification System. Canadian standards, including NI 43-101, differ significantly from the
requirements of the SEC under its Industry Guide 7 (“Guide 7”), and Mineral Reserve and Resource information contained in this Presentation may not be
comparable to similar information disclosed by U.S. companies reporting pursuant to Guide 7. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
the term “resource” does not equate to the term “reserves”. Under Guide 7, mineralization may not be classified as a “reserve” unless the determination has been
made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time the reserve determination is made and volumes that are not
“reserves’ should not be disclosed. Among other things, all necessary permits would be required to be in hand or issuance imminent in order to classify
mineralized material as reserves under Guide 7. Accordingly, Mineral Reserves estimates included in this Presentation may not qualify as “reserves” under Guide
7. Guide 7’s current disclosure standards normally do not permit the inclusion of information concerning “Measured Mineral Resources”, “Indicated Mineral
Resources” or “Inferred Mineral Resources” or other descriptions of the amount of mineralization in mineral deposits that do not constitute “reserves” by Guide 7
standards in documents filed with the SEC. United States investors should also understand that “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a great amount of uncertainty
as to their existence and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of “Mineral Resources”, “Indicated
Mineral Resources” or “Inferred Mineral Resource” will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimated “Inferred Mineral Resources”
may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies except in rare cases. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of the “Mineral
Resources”, “Measured Mineral Resources”, “Indicated Mineral Resources” or “Inferred Mineral Resource” reported in this AIF exists or is economically or legally
mineable. Disclosure of “contained ounces” in a resource is permitted disclosure under Canadian regulations; however, Guide 7 normally only permits issuers to
report mineralization that does not constitute “reserves” by Guide 7 standards as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. Investors are
specifically cautioned not to assume that all or any part of the mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into Guide 7-defined mineral reserves. In
addition, the definitions of “Proven Mineral Reserves” and “Probable Mineral Reserves” under reporting standards in Canada differ in certain respects from the
standards of Guide 7. Accordingly, information concerning mineral deposits set forth herein may not be comparable with information made public by companies
that report in accordance with Guide 7.

5
Notes to Investors
Non-IFRSFinancial Performance Measures
The Company has included certain non-IFRS measures in this Presentation. Refer to the Company’s MD&A for an explanation and discussion of non-IFRS
measures. The Company believes that these measures, in addition to measures prepared in accordance with IFRS, provide investors an improved ability to evaluate
the underlying performance of the Company and to compare it to information reported by other companies. Management uses these measures for internal
valuation for the period and to assist with planning and forecasting of future operations. The non-IFRS measures are intended to provide additional information
and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance preparedin accordance with International Financial Reporting IFRS. These
measures do not have any standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS, and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. The
presentation of non-IFRS measures is not meant to be a substitute for the information presentedin accordance with IFRS. The non-IFRS financial measures included
in this Presentation include: total cash costs, all-in sustaining cost (“AISC”) and AISC per ounce of gold sold. Please refer to the “Non-IFRS Performance Measures”
section of the Company’s MD&A filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and in the United States through EDGAR at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov for a detailed
discussion and reconciliation of the non-IFRSmeasures to the most directly comparable IFRSmeasures.
Currency
All dollar amounts are expressed in, and references to “$” refer to, UnitedStates dollars unless otherwise indicated. References to “C$” refer to Canadian dollars.

6
Brucejack: Leveraging Our Experience
 First five years
– average annual gold production: over 520,000 ounces
– All-in Sustaining Costs: $615/ounce of gold sold
– average annual operating cash flow: $350 million
– total operating cash flow: $1.7 billion
 First 10 years
– average annual gold production: over 525,000 ounces
– All-in Sustaining Costs: $535/ounce of gold sold
 NPV5 LOM: $2.6 billion at $1,300 gold, post-tax
 Proven & Probable: 6.9 million ounces of gold at 12.6 g/t
 Debt-Free before scheduled maturity of December 2022
 2019 guidance reaffirmed

7
Agenda
 2019 Mineral Reserve Update
 2019 Life of Mine Plan
 2019 Life of Mine Costs and Economics
 2019 Mineral Resource Update
 Evolution of Geological Understanding
 Mining Opportunities
 Infill and Expansion Drilling
 Near Mine Exploration
 Operations
 Wrap and Q&A

8
Presenters
 Nick Scarcelli-Casciola, P.Eng. Mine Planning Manager
– Mineral Reserve & LOM
 Tom Yip, CPA, EVP & CFO
– LOM Finance
 Dr. Warwick Board, P.Geo., VP, Geology
– Mineral Resource
 Octavia Bath, M.Sc., Modelling Geologist
– Geology
 Dave Prins, VP, Operations
– Mining
– Operations

9
Also Present
 Michelle Romero, EVP, Corporate Affairs &
Sustainability
 John Hayes, Advisor
 Troy Shultz, Manager, Investor Relations
 Britta Schmidt, Organizer

10
Brucejack 2019
Mineral Reserve Update

11
2019 Reserve Update
 Valley of Kings Reserves updated
 No update to West Zone as no change in known data
 Updated three variables to generate 2019 Reserves:
1. Costs (Mining, Maintenance, Processing, and Site Services)
2. Stope Design Parameters
3. Net Smelter Return (NSR) Model

12
2019 Mining Cost
 Updated cost based on projected 3,800 tpd costs
– Accounts for 1,000m/month developmentthroughout LOM
– Determinedprior to LOM completion
– Determinedfrom actuals
– Greater than LOM costs
 NSR cut off used:
– 2019 – USD 185/t
– 2016 – USD 165/t
– 2014 Feasibility Study incorporateda buffer to the operatingcost to
account for uncertainty(NSR cut off of USD 165/t used with costs
at USD 150/t)

13
Reserve Mining Cost Comparison
(1) Costs used for delineation of reserves only, LOM mining costs will be covered separately
Costs(1)
2019 2016 Difference Reasons
Mining (CAD/t) 127.2 91.3 35.9
1,000m/month Dev,
Contractor Mining
Processing (CAD/t) 26.6 19.7 6.9
Maintenance (CAD/t) 10.8 21.2 -10.4
Site Services (CAD/t) 71.7 30.9 40.8
Snow Clearing,
Environmental
TotalCAD/t 236.2 163.1 73.1
CAD:USD 1:0.78 1:0.92
TotalUSD/t 184.2 150.0 34.2
Cost Used USD/t 185.0 165.0 20.0
Gold Price (USD/oz) 1,200.00 1,100.00
Silver Price (USD/oz) 15.60 17.00

14
Minimal Change to Stope Parameters
 2019 stope parameters remain consistent with the 2016
reserve update other than:
– Increase in NSR cost to USD 185/t; USD 165/t was used in 2016
– Increased minimum hangingwall and foot wall dips
– 2016 reserves completed in 15m tall blocks combined to form 30m
tall blocks
– 2019 reserves will generate 15m tall blocks if 30m tall blocks are
not economic
 Methodology for creating stopes similar to 2016 Reserves

15
Minimal Change to Stope Parameters
Parameters Units
2019
Reserve
2016
Reserve
NSR Cut-off $USD/t 185 165
Level Spacing m 30 30
Stope Span m 10-15 10-15
Minimum Mining Length m 10 10
Minimum Waste Pillar Length m 5 5
Minimum Foot Wall Dip degrees 10 0
Minimum Hanging Wall Dip degrees 10 0
Stope Block Height m 15-30 15
Mining Recovery % 94 94
Mining Dilution % 12 12

16
2019 Reserve Shapes Optimized
15m
15m

17
Net Smelter Return (NSR) Model
 NSR = Total Profit – Total Costs
 NSR > Cut off Cost = Profitable Ore
 2019 costs and recoveries derived from actual costs and
data gained from operation
 2019 on-site operating costs greater than 2016 costs (USD
185 vs USD 165)
 2019 selling costs greater than 2016 selling costs (not
included in on-site operating costs)

18
Flotation Concentrate Based on Actuals
(1) Other cost includes assays, consultants and penalties
(2) Totals exclude arsenic penalty and refining costs, which are variable costs
Costs $CAD/DMT 2019 2016 Difference
Treatment ($/t) 308.0 200.0 108.0
Transport ($/t) 346.0 193.2 152.8
Other(1)
($/t) 21.0 0 20.0
Total(2)
($/t) 675.0 393.2 281.0 (72%)
 2016 Reserves used 2014 Feasibility Study costs estimates
 2014 Feasibility Study under estimated costs significantly

19
 Valley of Kings Reserve updated
 Excludes all Reserve material mined prior to January 1,
2019
– ≈ 1.5 Mt Ore
– ≈ 75% of material taken as Ore was from Measured Resource
– 11.0 g/t average grade
– ≈ 546,000containedounces of Gold
– 528,496 produced ounces of Gold
 Used Mine Shape Optimizer (MSO) to generate economicstopes
using set parametersfor stopes
 Generatedshapes above NSR cut-off (USD 185)were included in
reserves
2019 Mineral Reserves

20
West Zone
Valley of Kings
FaultZone
Valley of
KingsMain
Zone

21
Looking West
West ZoneValley of Kings
Current Mining
Horizon
1200L-1410L

22
Zone
Ore Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade Contained Metal
Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Au (Moz) Ag (Moz)
Valley of Kings
Zone(1)
Proven 2.0 11.2 11.8 0.7 0.7
Probable 11.1 14.3 10.5 5.1 3.8
Total 13.1 13.8 10.7 5.8 4.5
West Zone
Proven 1.4 7.2 383.0 0.3 17.4
Probable 1.5 6.5 181.0 0.3 8.6
Total 2.9 6.9 278.5 0.6 26.0
Total Mine
Proven 3.4 9.5 166.5 1.0 18.1
Probable 12.6 13.4 30.8 5.4 12.4
Total 16.0 12.6 59.3 6.4 30.5
(1) Excludes all material mined prior to January 1, 2019
(2) Ore Tonnes, Grade, and Contained metal are inclusive of a 94% mining recovery and a 12% external dilution factor, dilution contains
no grade
(3) Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in totals

23
2016 vs 2019 Reserve Comparison
 2019 Reserves
– Estimated after mining of ≈ 1.5 Mt of Ore
– Excludes all Reserve material mined prior to January1, 2019
 To provide a comparison between the two Reserves we
must consider
– 2016 Reserves
– 2019 Reserves + 2017/2018 production(Milled Actuals)

24
Valley of Kings + West Zone
Ore Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade
Contained
Metal
Au (g/t) Au (Moz)
2019 Reserves+
Milled Actuals
2019 Proven 3.4 9.5 1.0
2019 Probable 12.6 13.4 5.4
2018 Actuals 1.0 11.9 0.4
2017 Actuals 0.5 9.4 0.2
Total 17.5 12.4 6.9
2016 Reserves Proven 4.7 11.4 1.9
Probable 13.8 15.3 6.8
Total 18.5 14.4 8.7
2019 - 2016 Difference -1.0 -2.0 -1.7
 (2019 Reserve + Milled Actuals) vs (2016 Reserve)
– 5.5% decrease in tonnage
– 13.7% decrease in grade
– 19.8% decrease in ounces
*Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in totals

25
Valley of Kings
Ore Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade
Contained
Metal
Au (g/t) Au (Moz)
2019 Reserves+
Milled Actuals
2019 Proven 2.0 11.2 0.7
2019 Probable 11.1 14.3 5.1
2018 Actuals 1.0 11.9 0.4
2017 Actuals 0.5 9.4 0.2
Total 14.6 13.4 6.3
2016 Reserves Proven 3.3 14.5 1.6
Probable 12.3 16.5 6.5
Total 15.6 16.1 8.1
2019 - 2016 Difference -1.0 -2.6 -1.7
 (2019 Reserve + Milled Actuals) vs (2016 Reserve)
– 6.4% decrease in tonnage
– 16.1% decrease in grade
– 21.0% decrease in ounces

26
2019 Reserve More Robust
 Higher resolution of mineralized zones for central core
– 2016 Resource assumed more uniform grade distribution within
stockwork
– 2019 Resource models high-grade alongnarrower E-W corridors
within stockwork
– Decreases tonnes
 Improved definition of internal dilution
– Due to narrower corridorsof ore each stope containsmore sub-
economicmaterial (internal dilution)
– Due to current mining methods(transverse longhole stoping)
sub-economicmaterial must be mined
– Decreases stope grade by increasingwaste mined
– If mined laterallyinternal dilution may potentiallybe reduced
 Mining costs forecast based on actuals
– Stope NSR cut-off grade increases from approximately5.3g/t
gold to 5.8g/t gold
– Minimal effect on containedounces (< 5%)

27
Increased Resolution of Mineralized
Zone
 2019 reduced N-S
continuity
 2019 models high
grade along E-W
corridors
 Decreases stope
tonnes
2019 Reserve - XCut 24 2016 Reserve - XCut 24
Looking West

28
Improved Definition of Internal
Dilution
 Narrower corridors
increase amount of
sub-economic material
mined
 Transverse mining
requires this material
to be taken
 Decreases gold grade
2019 Reserve - XCut 24 2016 Reserve - XCut 24
Looking West

29
Positive 2019 Reserve Validation
 Generated Reserve Validation shapes in the mined out
regions of the orebody using the same methodology as the
2019 reserves
 Validation shapes act as a direct comparison of what the
2019 Reserves would be in the mined out regions
 Compared tonnes and grade of 2018 actuals to the
validation shapes mined in 2018
 Included material mined from development and
production from 2018 only
 Included 12% dilution factor and 94% mining recovery on
all validation shapes, consistent with reserve methodology

30
 Tonnage from validation shapes are 20% less than actual
mined while ounces produced are very similar due to:
– Miningof additional low grade material outside of the validation
shapes
– Confirmed by comparisonof Cavity Monitor System (CMS) scans
and validation shapes
 Ounce difference within variability for high nugget
deposits
Year
Tonnes
(,000 t)
Gold Grade
(g/t)
Au Mined
Ounces
(,000 oz)
Tonnes
Difference
Ounce
Difference
Actuals 1,006 11.9 385 - -
2019 Reserve
Validation Shapes
801 15.4 397 -20% +3%

31
 2019 Validation Shapes vs 2016 Reserve Comparison
– Validationshapes have reduced N-S mining width
– Validationshapes less continuous, more waste pillars
 Mined stopes based off of 2016 Reserve shapes
 Additional material mined outside of the 2019 validation
shapes but within 2016 reserve shapes
Mined Actuals with 2016 Reserves
1320L 1320L
Mined Actuals with 2019 Reserve
Validation Shapes

32
2016 Reserve vs Mined Actuals
Mined Actualswith 2016 Reserves– 1320L Plan View
1320L

33
Mined Actuals with 2019 Reserve Validation Shapes – 1320L Plan View
1320L
2019 Validation Shapes vs Mined
Actuals

34
Brucejack 2019 Life Of Mine Plan

35
Life of Mine (LOM) Parameters
Mine Parameters
2019 LOM Plan
(2019-2032)(1)
Total Mined (Mt)(2)
19.5
Ore Mined (Mt) 15.8
Average Gold Grade (g/t) 12.6
Estimated Gold Recovery (%) 96.3
Total Recovered Gold (Moz) 6.2
Average Annual Gold Production (oz) 441,000
Mine Life (Years)(3) 14
Max Mucking Rate (tpd) 3,800
(1) Mine Plan created from 2019 reserves, does not account for reserve expansion
(2) Total Mined includes both Ore and Waste material mined over LOM
(3) Mine Life refers to years where production occurs, final year is only partially mined

36
 Achieve 3,800 tpd in Q4 2019, Maintain until 2027
 Development of 1,000 m/month required for
approximately 2 years
– Required to set up increase in tonnage, not required for
maintaining
– Reduction in meters begins in 2021, gradual decrease in meters
over LOM
 Mid 2020 gold grade starts to increase
– Larger percentage of probable reserves being mined
– Increase in 1080L-1200Land fault zone material
 Early 2027 increase in West Zone production
– West Zone ore (lower gold, high silver grade)
 Assumes no reserve expansion
2019 Life of Mine Plan Summary

37
2019 LOM Year Breakdown
(1) Tonnage rounded to nearest thousand
(2) Created from 2019 Reserves, does not account for Reserve Expansion
(3) Proven gold grade is estimated within a tolerance of +/- 10%/Probable gold grade within a tolerance of +/- 15%
Years
Tonnage(1)
(t)
Dev
Meters
(m)
Gold
Grade
(g/t)(3)
Silver
Grade
(g/t)
Gold
Production
('000 ounces)
Silver
Production
('000 ounces)
2019 1,235,000 10,924 10.6 11.2 407 392
2020 1,371,000 10,950 12.0 11.3 512 445
2021 1,383,000 8,550 13.0 11.7 563 462
2022 1,386,000 8,550 13.6 10.2 592 404
2023 1,387,000 8,550 12.3 17.5 533 663
2024 1,388,000 7,350 13.5 20.7 586 779
2025 1,388,000 7,241 14.3 52.1 613 1,993
2026 1,380,000 4,373 13.9 93.7 594 3,637
2027 1,180,000 3,528 12.6 85.6 457 2,832
2028 1,180,000 1,011 12.0 130.3 436 4,371
2029 902,000 1,322 10.8 87.7 299 2,220
2030 826,000 915 14.4 119.3 366 2,793
2031 571,000 249 9.8 220.1 171 3,634
2032 177,000 96 7.4 269.4 40 1,387
LOM Total(2) 15,754,000 73,609 12.6 58.4 6,169 26,012
LOM Average(2)
1,125,286 5,258 12.6 58.4 441 1,858
 Estimated average annual gold production of over 525,000 oz for first 10 years
 Estimated average annual gold production of 441,000 oz for LOM

38
2019 LOM Plan: Production
*Based on 2019 Reserves, does not accountfor Reserve Expansion
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
AuGrade(g/t)
Thousands
Year
LOM Plan: Tonnes, Ounces, Grade
Mined Tonnes Au Oz Milled Au Mined Grade

39
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
AuGrade(g/t)
ProductionMass(kt)
Years
LOM by Zones
Valley of Kings - Fault Zone Valley of Kings - Main Zone West Zone Ore Au Grade (g/t)
2019 LOM Plan: Tonnes by Zone
*Based on 2019 Reserves, does not accountfor Reserve Expansion

40
2019 LOM Compared to 2014 LOM
Mine Parameters 2019 LOM Plan
(2019-2032)(1)
2014 LOM Plan
(2019-2034)(3)(4) Difference (%)
Total Mined (Mt) 19.5 17.2 13.3 %
Ore Mined (Mt) 15.8 14.7 7.5 %
Average Gold Grade (g/t) 12.6 14.0 -10.0 %
Estimated Gold Recovery (%) 96.3 96.5 -0.2 %
Total Recovered Gold (Moz) 6.2 6.4 -3.1 %
Average Annual Gold Production (oz) 441,000 400,000 10.3 %
Mine Life (Years)(2) 14 16 -12.5 %
Max Mucking Rate (tpd) 3,800 2,700 40.7 %
(1) Mine Plan based on 2019 reserves, does not account for reserve expansion
(2) Mine Life refers to years where production occurs, final year is only partially mined
(3) Excludes years prior to January 1, 2019.
(4) 2014 LOM Values taken from 2014 Feasibility Study financial model of LOM plan

41
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
AuGrade(g/t)
KozGold
Year
LOM Cumulative Ouncesvs Gold Grade
2019 Cumulative Ounces 2014 Cumulative Ounces 2019 Au Grade (g/t) 2014 Au Grade (g/t)
Cumulative Gold ProductionComparison

42
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
GoldGrade(g/t)
OreTonnes(t)
Year
Ore Tonnesvs Gold Grade
2019 Ore Tonnes 2014 Ore Tonnes 2019 Au Grade (g/t) 2014 Au Grade (g/t)
AnnualTonnageand Grade Comparison

43
Brucejack 2019 LOM Costs and
Economics

44
Brucejack LOM - Robust Economics
 Gold sales: 6.1M oz
 AISC: $539/oz LOM
 NPV(5%): $2.6B at $1,300/oz Gold
 Significant Operating Cash Flow: totaling $1.7B over
first five years
 Debt-Free before scheduled maturity of December
2022

45
Brucejack LOM - Key Assumptions
 Financial
– Gold Price (US$/oz) $1,300
– FEX (US$) $0.775:CA$1
– Tax Rates (Income/BCMineral) 27%/13%
– Royalty(NSR) 1.2%
 Mine Operations
– Total Mine/Mill (tonnes) 15.8M
– Total Lateral Development (m) 69,000
– Total CapitalizedDevelopment (m) 5,000
– Total Infill Drilling(m) 491,000
– Mill Through-put capacity(tpd) 3,800
– Average Grade (gpt) 12.6
– Gold Recovery 96%
– EnergyRate at current tariff 0.067/kWh

46
LOM Operating Costs Summary (US$)
(1) Mining costs exclude costs associated with ramp development and raises. These costs are included in capital costs.
(2) Maintenance costs include costs related to maintenance of all surface equipment, facilities, and electrical substations.
(3) Include all other site costs including access road and glacier road maintenance, as well as Smithers office costs.
(4) Excludes selling costs, refining, and costs related to agreements with First Nations’ communities.
(5) Remaining LOM – 2019 onwards
Mining 1
$/t mined 91.37 90.98 63.76 77.62 74.40
Processing $/t milled 22.42 21.17 21.56 21.36 21.87
Maintenance 2
$/t milled 11.32 8.55 8.87 8.71 9.36
G&A 3
$/t milled 79.84 57.33 59.36 58.33 62.38
Total Site Operating Costs $/t milled 209.45 178.03 153.56 166.02 168.00
Total Tonnes Milled (000) 1,006 6,762 6,915 1,328 15,754
Site Operating Costs 4
$ M 211 1,204 1,001 220 2,647
Total LOM (5)
Units
2018
Actual
First 5 Years
(2019 - 2023)
Second 5 Years
(2024 - 2028)
10 Year
Average/Total

47
Unit mining costs impacted by:
 Development meters averages ~900m/month (2019 – 2020); ~700m/month (2021 -
2022); ~600m/month (2023 – 2025); ~200m/month (2026 – 2030).
 Infill drilling in 2019 - 2023 to upgrade total probable reserves.
 Capital development costs excluded above.
Unit Costs Compared to Development
Rate

48
Unit Costs Compared to Processing Rate

49
Unit Costs Compared to Processing Rate
Site Services and Surface Maintenance unit costs impacted by:
 Lower site services costs related to road and glacier maintenance.
 Lower maintenance costs related with the new site services equipment (leased).
 Increased camp occupancy and higher camp costs.

50
(1)
C$163/t @ Feasibility Study FEX (0.92$US : 1C$) = US$150
(2)
C$163/t @ current FEX (0.775$US : 1C$) versus Feasibility Study FEX (0.92$US : 1C$) = FEX gain of US$24/t
Total Operating Costs / Tonne (in US$)
2014 FS vs 2019 LOM Plan

51
Capital and Closure Costs (in US$)
Main elements of capital include:
 Mining:
– Ramp development and capital raises, backfill piping installation, and
underground mine ventilation upgrades.
 Processing:
– Underground paste pump and belt magnet, dust control improvements,
maintenance access monorail, screen replacements, and other improvement
projects.
 Site Services and Surface Maintenance
– Site infrastructure improvements, mobile equipment enhancements including
mid-lives, remote avalanche control system, road improvements and
upgrades, and communication hardware improvements.
 Expansion Capital:
– 3,800tpd expansion project
Mining $ M 5 27 24 5 52
Processing $ M 1 17 15 3 33
Site Services & Surface Maintenance $ M 10 65 40 10 116
Total Sustaining Capital $ M 16 109 79 19 201
Mine Closure / Reclamation $ M 29
Sustaining & Closure Costs $ M 17 109 79 19 230
Expansion Capital $ M 1 23 0 2 23
Total Capital & Closure Costs $ M 18 132 79 21 253
Total LOMDescription Units
2018
Actual
First 5 Years
(2019 - 2023)
Second 5 Years
(2024 - 2028)
10 Year
Average

52
All-In Sustaining Costs (in US$)
(1) Net of silver credits. Including selling costs, refining, and costs related to agreements with First Nations’ communities.
(2) Remaining LOM – 2019 onwards.
(3) Reclamation accrued on a per sold ounce basis. LOM of $29M incurred at end of mine life.
On-Site Operating Costs $ M 211 1,204 1,001 2,205 2,647
Off-Site Costs (1)
$ M 37 192 46 239 188
Total Cash Cost $ M 248 1,396 1,047 2,443 2,835
Reclamation Cost (3)
$ M 1 5 5 10 29
Sustaining Capital $ M 17 110 78 188 201
Mine Site Sustaining Cash Cost $ M 265 1,510 1,130 2,640 3,065
Corporate G&A Costs $M 16 80 80 160 224
Gold ounces sold (in millions) oz. 0.367 2.585 2.654 5.239 6.103
Mine Site Sustaining Cash Cost per ounce $/oz. 722 584 426 504 502
AISC per ounce of gold sold $/oz. 764 615 456 535 539
10 Years
(2019 - 2028)
Total LOM (2)
Units
2018
Actual
First 5 Years
(2019 - 2023)
Second 5
Years
(2024 - 2028)

53
Sensitivity – NPV(5%) (Post-tax)
$US Billions
Gold Price $1,100 $1,300 $1,500
Operating costs - 10% 2.14 2.72 3.28
FEX - 10%
(US$0.697:C$1)
2.12 2.69 3.26
Base Case 2.00 2.59 3.16
FEX -10%
(US$0.852:C$1)
1.90 2.48 3.06
Operating costs + 10% 1.88 2.46 3.03
(1)
US$1,300 Au, US$16.90 Ag, and FEXUS$0.775:C$1
Base Case(1) Post-tax NPV (5%) = US$2.59B

54
Operating Cash flow – next 5 years
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Production ounces ('000s) 376 390-420 512 563 592 533
Operating cash flows(1)
(in US$M) 169 209 317 404 449 356
(1)
Operating cash flows are defined as cash flows from operations less capital expenditures.

55
Annual Free Cash Flow Available for
Debt Service
 Debt service requirementsincludes principal repaymentsof the
loan facility, repayment of the convertible note and interest
payments.
 Interest payments assume revolver is repaid only upon maturity
in December 2022.
 In 2019, debt service requirementsexclude the discretional
reduction election for the offtake obligation.
Life of Mine - Resource at 3,800 tpd
In US$ millions 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Debt service required 109$ 89$ 85$ 380$ -$
Cash flow available for debt service
Gold price (US$/oz) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1,300$ 209$ 317$ 404$ 449$ 356$
1,100$ 139$ 216$ 292$ 335$ 271$
1,500$ 278$ 418$ 517$ 507$ 348$

56
Brucejack LOM - Robust Economics
 Gold production - 6.2M oz; sales – 6.1M oz
 AISC - $539/oz LOM
 NPV(5%) - $2.6B at $1,300/oz Gold
 Significant Operating Cash Flow - totaling $1.7B over
first five years
 Debt-Free before scheduled maturity of December
2022

58
2019 Mineral Resource
 2019 Mineral Resource
 Reconciliation to 2018 production

59
2019 Mineral Resource Update
Parameters
 Updated with 76,697 m in 1,275 drill holes of infill
drilling
 7.5 – 12.5 m drill centers
 Same estimation methodology, higher resolution
Takeaways
 Similar grade M+I above cut-off in less tonnes
 Improved domain definition – tighter domains
 Improved reconciliation to production, in well-
informed area

60
Category
Tonnes
(Mt)
Au
(g/t Au)
Ag
(g/t Ag)
Contained
Au
(Moz)
Contained
Ag
(Moz)
Measured 1.8 17.15 16.4 1.0 1.0
Indicated 11.9 17.15 15.4 6.6 5.9
Measured
+
Indicated
13.7 17.15 15.5 7.6 6.8
Inferred 3.8 17.7 19.4 2.2 2.4
(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 in this
Technical Report were estimated 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) For comparative purposes only, the March 2019 Mineral Resource is reported at a gold equivalent value defined as AuEq=Au+Ag/53
(5) Excludes production as at 31 December 2018
(6) Mineral Resource is reported inclusive of Mineral Reserve
March 2019 Mineral Resource
Valley of the Kings Zone(1-6)

61
March 2019 Mineral Resource
Category
Tonnes
(Mt)
Au
(g/t Au)
Ag
(g/t Ag)
Contained
Au
(Moz)
Contained
Ag
(Moz)
Measured 4.2 10.71 204.8 1.5 27.8
Indicated 14.4 15.19 45.6 7.1 21.0
Measured
+
Indicated
18.7 14.18 81.6 8.5 48.7
Inferred 7.8 12.0 51.3 3.0 13.0
Valley of the Kings and West Zone Mineral Resource(1-6)
(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 in this
Technical Report were estimated 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) For comparative purposes only, the March 2019 Mineral Resource is reported at a gold equivalent value defined as AuEq=Au+Ag/53
(5) Excludes production as at 31 December 2018
(6) Mineral Resource is reported inclusive of Mineral Reserve

62
Global Resource Model Comparison
Resource
Model
AuEq
Cut-off
(g/t)
Tonnes
(Mt)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(g/t)
Contained Au
(Moz)
Contained Ag
(Moz)
Measured
Pretium 2019 5 2.4 19.7 19.1 1.5 1.4
Pretium 2016 5 3.5 17.0 15.3 1.9 1.7
Change - -1.1 +2.7 +3.8 -0.4 -0.3
Indicated
Pretium 2019 5 12.1 17.2 15.4 6.7 6.0
Pretium 2016 5 13.0 17.3 15.0 7.2 6.2
Change - -0.9 -0.1 +0.4 -0.5 -0.2
Measured + Indicated
Pretium 2019 5 14.5 17.6 16.0 8.2 7.4
Pretium 2016 5 16.4 17.2 15.0 9.1 7.9
Change - -1.9 +0.4 +1.0 -0.9 -0.5
Inferred
Pretium 2019 5 3.9 17.7 19.4 2.2 2.4
Pretium 2016 5 4.6 21.0 26.9 3.1 4.0
Change - -0.7 -3.3 -7.5 -0.9 -1.6
March 2019 vs July 2016 resource models - Valley of the Kings Zone
Tonnes and grades presented in this slide are as unmined for comparison purposes

63
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Tonnage(Mt)AboveCut-offGrade
AverageGrade(g/t)aboveCut-offGrade
Cut-off Grade (AuEq g/t)
Grade Tonnage Curve:Measured+ Indicated
Grade (2019)
Tonnes (2019)
Grade (2016)
Tonnes (2016)
Sensitivity: 2016 & 2019 Global Resource
Reduced Tonnes
Similar Grade
 Localization of high grade in broad mineralized corridors
 Globally ubiquitous, locally variable

64
Modelling Approach Unchanged
 Mixed and positively skewed grade distribution
 Same estimation technique as 2016
 Split population approach
– High grade estimated using Multiple Indicator Kriging
– Low grade estimated using Ordinary Kriging
– Probability of high grade estimated using Ordinary Kriging
Au(Final) = Au(high grade)* Probability(Au high grade) + Au(low grade) * Probability Au(low grade)
Estimation

65
Modelling Changes 2013 to 2019
Parameter 2013 2016 2019
High grade /low
grade delimiter
5 g/t Au
50 g/t Ag
3.5 g/t Au
20 g/t Ag
Parent block size 10 x 10 x 10 m 5 x 5 x 5 m
Block size for
estimation
High grade, probability
→ 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 m
Low grade → 10 x 10 x 10 m
High grade, probability, low grade
→ 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 m
Re-blocking
High grade, probability
→ 10 x 10 x 10 m
High grade, probability, low grade
→ 5 x 5 x 5 m
Search strategy Global – less localized Localized by number of samples
Model addition Post re-blocking Pre re-blocking
Production
Reconciliation
0.01 Mt production
Bulk sample 2013
1.5 Mt production
Mining 2017-2018
Estimation

66
Domain Modelling
 Domain solids model broad corridors of mineralized
stockwork to constrain grade estimation
 Domain solids with similar precious metal statistics are
shown with the same color in the subsequent slides

67
2013 Domains: Valley of the Kings
Domain 20
Main E-W
domains
Underground
development
CrossSection along 426635E

68
2019 Domains: Valley of the Kings
Domain 20
Main E-W
domains
Underground
development

69
2019 Domains and Update Area
Domain 20
Main E-W
domains
Update
area
Underground
development

70
Grade Distribution Remains Constant
Au (g/t)
Cumulative Distribution Plot
CumulativeProbability%
Au (g/t)
 Infill drilling confirms grade distribution in update area
 Grade distribution similar regardless of drill density
2017-2018
1980-2016

71
Modelling Changes 2013 to 2019
Parameter 2013 2016 2019
Update Area Full area update
Only where
new drilling
Only where
new drilling
Nominal Drill
Spacing
25-40 m 15-25 m 12.5-20 m
Number of Domain
Corridors
20 20 23
Domain Grouping
(Common statistics)
No
Yes
Total: 6
Update area: 1
Yes
Total: 11
Update area: 6
Domain Style
Individual
corridors
Combined
corridors
(inside update
area)
Refined Individual
Corridors
(inside update area)
High grade
population CDF
Single CDF for all domains
Different CDF per
grouped domain
*CDF – Cumulative Distribution Function
Domain Modelling

72
Drilling and Model Update Area: Video

73
Drilling and Model Update Areas
 Added 76,697 m in 1,275 drillholes in update area
– 88% Infill holes
– 7% Exploration holes
– 2% Definition holes
– 3% Production holes
July
2016
March
2019

74
Reconciliation to 2018 Production
Two Approaches:
 Wireframe-based approach
– Report Mineral Resource inside wireframe solids of as-mined shapes,
including:
 Blasts
 Cavity MonitoringScans
– Annual reconciliation
 Truck tracking-based approach
– Uses daily reconciledtruck tonnes to crusher
– Trackingof ore to mill and timing on a short-term basis relies on
accuracyof mine records
– Mineral Resource grades proportionallyassigned by production
– Approximatesdailypredicted grade

75
Reconciliation to 2018 Production
Au (g/t)
Tonnage
(‘000s)(1,2)
Contained
Oz. Au
(‘000s)(2)
Total Mined – Wireframe approach 11.07 1,000 356
Total Mined - Truck Tracking approach* 11.80 1,006 382
Mill Data 11.90 1,006 385
Percentage Difference Mined to Mill 7.0% 0.6% 7.6%
Percentage Difference Mined to Mill
Truck Tracking approach
0.9% - 0.9%
2018 full year reconciliation 2019 model to mill
as-mined wireframes/shapes versus truck tracking
(1) Truck Tracking uses daily reconciled tonnes to crusher
(2) Tonnes and Contained ounce totals may differ due to rounding

76
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
1/1/2018 2/1/2018 3/1/2018 4/1/2018 5/1/2018 6/1/2018 7/1/2018 8/1/2018 9/1/2018 10/1/2018 11/1/2018 12/1/2018
Year2018
2018 Mill Production
July 2016 Model
OuncesAu
Reconciliation to 2018 Production:
2016 Model
July 2016 Model
Mined Au (Oz):
436,000
Mill Produced
Au (Oz): 385,000Based on Truck Tracking
Cumulative Ounces

77
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
1/1/2018 2/1/2018 3/1/2018 4/1/2018 5/1/2018 6/1/2018 7/1/2018 8/1/2018 9/1/2018 10/1/2018 11/1/2018 12/1/2018
Year2018
2018 Mill Production
March 2019 Model
Mill Produced
Au (Oz): 385,000
Reconciliation to 2018 Production:
2019 Model
March 2019 Model
Reconciled Mined
Au (Oz): 382,000
Cumulative Ounces
Based on Truck Tracking
OuncesAu

78
Evolution of Geological
Understanding

79
Geological Understanding
What has changed?
 New geological information
– Drilling data
– Underground development
 Structural framework
– Improved geological understanding of high-
grade zones within broader mineralized
corridors
 Gold transportation and mineralization controls
– Predominantly colloidal
– No geochemical proxy

80
Structural Understanding: 2013
Fragmental
Volcanic Rocks
N S
200 m
Polylithic
Conglomerate
Intensely Silicified
Conglomerate
Hbl-phyric
Latite Flow
Siltstone, litharenite,
pebble conglomerate
Plag.-Kfs.-Phyric
Latite Flow
Valley of the
Kings
West Zone
Mineralized
Corridors
 Folded System – related to KSM?
 Broad E-W corridors
 Limited underground exposure

81
AfterTombe et al.
(2018)
 Veiningpost-
deformation
 Younger than KSM
 Broad E-W
corridors
 Increased
underground
development

82
 Improved geological
understanding with
more data
 High-grade zones
within broader
mineralized corridors
 1.5 million tonnes of
mining

83
Geochemical Controls on Gold
Later
High-grade Au in electrum
Early
Low-grade Au in pyrite
Mixed Grade Populations

84
Gold Transportation & Mineralization
1 . Porphyry
pyrite
2. Low grade Au
in epithermal pyrite
3. High-grade Au
in epithermal
electrum
BackscatterElectron Image
100μm
Mixed populations
microscale

85
Gold Transportation & Mineralization
Electrum
Calcite
Colloidal Gold
 Physical transport
– In suspension
– No geochemical proxy
 Vapor phase
 Au(suspension)>>Au(in solution)
– Ubiquitous
 Precipitation
– Mixing with seawater
– Boiling
– Locallyvariable
 Structural control
– Faults
– Fractures
– Lithological contacts
– Foliation planes
Electrum
particles

86
 High-grade gold localized within broader mineralized
stockwork corridors
 E-W structures are dominant
 Mixed grade populations down to microscopic-scale
– Early pyrite-associated low-grade gold with later high-
grade epithermal electrum
– Non-linear split approach required for estimation
 Gold transportation and precipitation
– Carried in suspension as colloidal particles
– Ubiquitous, yet locally variable
Key Takeaways on New Understanding

87
Improving Predictability of High
Grade

88
Structural Framework 2019
Silcap

89
Valley of the Kings Cross Section
S N
100 m
Au (g/t)
<0.25
0.25-0.5
0.50-1
1-2.5
2.5-5
5-20
20-1000
>1000
Silicified
Zone (Silcap)

90
High-Grade Gold Modelling
 Quantifying visible gold hits in underground mapping
50 m 1260 Level PlanView
N
N
50 m
VG 1
VG 2
VG 3

91
 Assigning visible gold classification scheme to drill hole
intersections with appropriate grade ranges, where no
visible gold was noted
N
Valley of the Kings Zone
West Zone
Au (g/t)
5-50
50-350
350-1500
>1500 100 m
Underground
development

92
Au (g/t)
5-50
50-350
350-1500
>1500
30 m

93
Preliminary High-Grade Zone Modelling
Valley of the Kings Zone
West Zone
Au (g/t)
5-50
50-350
350-1500
>1500
Underground
development
Mineralized
stockwork
corridors
(domain)
N
30 m
High-grade trend
examples

94
High-Grade Mineralization Trends
Silcap
N
Underground
development
> 20 g/t drill
intersection
Underground
visible gold
High-grade
mineralization
trend

95
N
Silcap
Underground
development
High-grade
mineralization
trend
> 20 g/t drill
intersection
Underground
visible gold

96
N
Silcap
Underground
development
High-grade
mineralization
trend
> 20 g/t drill
intersection
Underground
visible gold

97
N
Silcap
Underground
development
> 20 g/t drill
intersection
Underground
visible gold
High-grade
mineralization
trend
High-grade
mineralization
zone

98
Key Objectives
 Improve predictability of high-grade gold
mineralization
 Improve definition of high-grade structures
 Efficient and effective mining

99
Longitudinal Longhole Stoping

100
Transverse & Longitudinal Longhole
Test Stoping
1200 Level

101
Proposed Longitudinal Longhole Test
Stoping Corridor
1170 Level

102
Longitudinal Longhole Test Stoping
Corridor
1260 Level

103
Longitudinal Longhole Test Stoping
Corridor
1380 Level

104
Brucejack 2019 Infill and
Expansion Drill Program

105
2019 Infill Drilling for Proven Reserve
Convert Probable to Proven Reserve
 Phase 1 infill drilling targeting stopes at depth below
1200 m level
 Phase 2 infill drilling targeting western stopes towards
Brucejack Fault

106
Upgrading Probable at Depth
LEARNINGS
• 2018 YTD 63,310m DDH, RC
• Dry RC drillingnot optimal
• Issues with dust, cost,
relocation,slower penetration
rates
• Gopher removed from site
N
30 m
Plan view: 1170 m level +20 m/-60 m
Mine development
Planneddrillhole
Phase 1
(Current)
Brucejack Fault

107
E
30 m
1170 m
W
1200 m
1140 m
1110 m
1230 m
Mine development
Planneddrillhole
Planned
stope
Upgrading Probable at Depth
Phase 1
(Current)
View looking N

108
LEARNINGS
• 2018 Resource YTD 27,300m DDH Hy-Tech and
~Gopher
• Coming in ahead of schedule and on budget
from AFEs E0047, E0048
• Upgrading Inferred Resource to Indicated
• WB, Ivor and Kristin working on Res Update
• Defined extension of eastern domains
between 1080-1440
• Had additionalbudget to drill “Low Hanging
Fruit”
N Mine development
Planneddrillhole
Plan View: 1320 m level +/-20m
20 m
Upgrading Probable to West
Phase 2
(Current)
Brucejack Fault

109
Upgrading Probable to West
Phase 2
(Current)
Viewing Down and to ENE

110
Future Resource Drilling
Convert Inferred to Indicated Resource
 Phase 3 resource drilling at depth below 1080 m level
 Phase 4 resource drilling east of the main Valley of the
Kings zone on 1200 m and 1320 m levels
 Phase 5 resource drilling northeast of main Valley of the
Kings Zone on 1410 m level

111
LEARNINGS
~Gopher
between 1080-1440
Fruit”
N
20 m
Mine
development
(625 m)
(547 m)
Planneddrillholes
Upgrading Inferred at Depth
Phase 3
(Planned)
Plan View: 1080 m level +20/-40m
Brucejack Fault

112
LEARNINGS
~Gopher
between 1080-1440
Fruit”
Upgrading Inferred at Depth
SSWNNE
100 m
Mine
development
Planneddrillhole
View to ESE
Phase 3
(Planned)
View to ESE

113
Upgrading Inferred to East
Planned
drillholes (N)
Planned
drillholes (S)
InferredBoundary
GalenaHill domains
Mine
development
Phase 4
(Planned)
Plan View: 1200 m level

114
Upgrading Inferred to the East
Phase 4
(Planned)

115
N
50 m
Upgrading Probable & Inferred (NE)
Phase 5
(Planned)

116
Expansion Potential
 The Valley of the Kings deposit remains open in all
directions
 Upside potential for adding and upgrading resources
and reserves

117
Brucejack Near Mine Exploration
Potential

118
2019 Reserve Definition and
Expansion Drilling
2015 Flow Dome
Zone Drilling3
500 m
Au (g/t)
0.5-1.0
5.0-20.0
>20.0
1.0-5.0
SU-666
2.05m @2,100 g/t Au
(Inc 0.5m @ 8,600 g/t Au
Anomalous
Cu andMo
N Mineral Resource1
Mineral Reserve2
Exploration Potential
Valley of the Kings
Reserve Definition
& Expansion Drilling
Target Area
Resource Exploration
Drilling Target Area
2019 Deep
Hole Drilling
2018
Exploration
Drill Holes4
9.0m @21.87 g/t Au
(Inc 0.5m @ 203 g/t Au
SU-657
(1) Outline of Measured, Indicated, andInferred Mineral Resource as at 21 July 2016.
(2) Outline of Provenand Probable Mineral Reserve, based onJune 19, 2014Feasibility Study
(3) 2015Regional Drill program; see News Release dated Oct 8, 2015.
(4) 2018UndergroundExplorationDrilling; see News Release dated June 18, 2018.

119
Porphyry Target at Depth
VU-1785
SU-671
SU-661
SU-677
SU-666
SU-658
SU-668
SU-654
SU-672
Planned
drillhole
N
500 m
Brucejack
Lake
Mill
Flow Dome
Zone

120
Other Zones Identified Nearby
~5 km
Current
mining
footprint

121
Mineralization Remains Open
 Valley of the Kings mineralization open to the east, west
and at depth
 Valley of the Kings mineralization extends to Flow Dome
Zone
 Flow Dome Zone a continuation of the Valley of the Kings
 Source porphyry potentially under Flow Dome Zone
 Nearby zones under-explored/Use knowledge gained
from Valley of the Kings to explore nearby zones
– R8 Zone, Gossan Hill Zone, Bridge Zone, Shore Zone, SG
Zone, Bonanza Zone

123
Safety Focus with Excellent Results

124
3,800 tpd Ramp Up On Schedule
 Development:
– Development 700 to 1,000m/month
– Q4 2018 average 824m/month
– On target to reach 1,000m/month in the near future
 3,800 tpd Mill Throughput and Mine Production
– Schedule to reach 3,800 tpd late Q4
– On target to achieve schedule
 UG Mining Equipment:
– Scoops and Trucks on site / operational
– All equipment projected to be onsite mid 2019
– Two additional state of the art production drills
 Mill Upgrades:
– Pumping & piping
– Flocculent and flotation upgrades

125
Bulk Concentrate Handling
Commissioned & Operational

126
3,800 tpd Ramp-up: Paste Backfill
 4 empty stopes in cycle
– One fill fence construction
– One fill fence curing
– 2 empty: cleaning / CMS scanning / piping
 Our paste backfill process is going exceptionally well
– Keeping up with mining and the impact of the increase in
tonnage as we ramp up to 3,800 tpd

127
3,800 tpd Ramp-up: Binder Supply
First Barge of Binder arriving at Stewart Port: 03/24/2019

128
What Sets Us Apart
 Our Team : Our People
 Our Culture
 Our Passion for Safety
 Our Operational Excellence
 Our Motto : MAKE IT HAPPEN

129
Challenges and Opportunities
Challenges
 Consistent delivery
– Grade control
– Variability
Opportunities
 Longitudinal longhole stoping
 Significant potential for reserve expansion
 Capital allocation

130
Questions
PVG : TSX/NYSEpretivm.com

VALUE THROUGH GOLD: INVESTORS DAY

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to VALUE THROUGH GOLD: INVESTORS DAY

Similar to VALUE THROUGH GOLD: INVESTORS DAY (20)

More from PretiumR

More from PretiumR (20)

VALUE THROUGH GOLD: INVESTORS DAY