Alamos corporate presentation june 5 2015 final

1. June 2015 Corporate Presentation

2. 2
Cautionary Notes
Cautionary Notes
No stock exchange, securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained herein.
Certain statements in this presentation are “forward-looking statements”, including within the meaning of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of
historical fact included in this presentation, including without limitation statements regarding forecast gold production, gold grades, recoveries, waste-to-ore ratios, total cash costs, potential mineralization and
reserves, exploration results, and future plans and objectives of Alamos, are forward-looking statements based on forecasts of future operational or financial results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and
assumptions of management that involve various risks and uncertainties. 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” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, “plans”, “estimates” or
“intends”, or stating that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be “forward-looking statements.”
Alamos cautions that forward-looking information involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause Alamos's actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different
from those expressed or implied by such information, including, but not limited to, gold and silver price volatility; fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and interest rates; the impact of any hedging activities;
discrepancies between actual and estimated production, between actual and estimated reserves and resources or between actual and estimated metallurgical recoveries; costs of production; capital expenditure
requirements; the costs and timing of construction and development of new deposits; and the success of exploration and permitting activities. In addition, the factors described or referred to in the section entitled
“Risk Factors” in Alamos' Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2014, which is available on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com, should be reviewed in conjunction with the information found
in this presentation. Although Alamos has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information,
there can be other factors that cause results, performance or achievements not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate or that
management’s expectations or estimates of future developments, circumstances or results will materialize. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.
Note to U.S. Investors
Alamos prepares its disclosure in accordance with the requirements of securities laws in effect in Canada, which differ from the requirements of U.S. securities laws. Terms relating to mineral resources in this
presentation are defined in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects under the guidelines set out in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum
Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) permits mining companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only those mineral
deposits that a company can economically and legally extract or produce. Alamos may use certain terms, such as “measured mineral resources”, “indicated mineral resources”, “inferred mineral resources” and
“probable mineral reserves” that the SEC does not recognize (these terms may be used in this presentation and are included in the public filings of Alamos, which have been filed with the SEC and the securities
commissions or similar authorities in Canada).
Cautionary non-GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures
Note that for purposes of this section, GAAP refers to IFRS. The Company believes that investors use certain non-GAAP and additional GAAP measures as indicators to assess gold mining companies. They are
intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared with GAAP.
Additional GAAP measures that are presented on the face of the Company’s consolidated statements of comprehensive income include “Mine operating costs”, “Earnings from mine operations” and “Earnings from
operations”. These measures are intended to provide an indication of the Company’s mine and operating performance. “Cash flow from operating activities before changes in non-cash working capital” is a non-
GAAP performance measure that could provide an indication of the Company’s ability to generate cash flows from operations, and is calculated by adding back the change in non-cash working capital to “Cash
provided by (used in) operating activities” as presented on the Company’s consolidated statements of cash flows. “Free cash flow” is a non-GAAP performance measure that is calculated as cash flows from
operations net of cash flows invested in mineral property, plant and equipment and exploration and evaluation assets as presented on the Company’s consolidated statements of cash flows and that would provide
an indication of the Company’s ability to generate cash flows from its mineral projects. Return on Equity is defined as Earnings from Continuing Operations divided by the average Total Equity for the current and
previous year. “Mining cost per tonne of ore” and “Cost per tonne of ore” are non-GAAP performance measures that could provide an indication of the mining and processing efficiency and effectiveness of the
mine. These measures are calculated by dividing the relevant mining and processing costs and total costs by the tonnes of ore processed in the period. “Cost per tonne of ore” is usually affected by operating
efficiencies and waste-to-ore ratios in the period. “Cash operating costs per ounce”, “total cash costs per ounce” and “all-in sustaining costs per ounce” as used in this analysis are non-GAAP terms typically used by
gold mining companies to assess the level of gross margin available to the Company by subtracting these costs from the unit price realized during the period. These non-GAAP terms are also used to assess the
ability of a mining company to generate cash flow from operations. There may be some variation in the method of computation of these metrics as determined by the Company compared with other mining
companies. In this context, “cash operating costs per ounce” reflects the cash operating costs allocated from in-process and dore inventory associated with ounces of gold sold in the period. “Cash operating costs
per ounce” may vary from one period to another due to operating efficiencies, waste-to-ore ratios, grade of ore processed and gold recovery rates in the period. “Total cash costs per ounce” includes “cash operating
costs per ounce” plus applicable royalties. Cash operating costs per ounce and total cash costs per ounce are exclusive of exploration costs. “All-in sustaining costs per ounce” include total cash costs, exploration,
corporate and administrative, share based compensation and sustaining capital costs. Non-GAAP and additional GAAP measures do not have a standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS and therefore may not
be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. For a reconciliation of non-GAAP and GAAP measures, please refer to Alamos’ Managements’ Discussion and Analysis as presented on SEDAR
and the Company’s website.
All figures in US$ unless otherwise indicated.

3. 3
• Mid‐tier gold producer
• Mexico (Sonora State): own and operate the Mulatos Mine
• 2015 guidance of 150,000‐170,000 ounces at all‐in sustainingcosts1 of $1,100 per ounce
• Low cost production growth from La Yaqui in Q4 2016 & Cerro Pelon in 2017
• Low‐cost growth pipeline
• Turkey (Çanakkale Province): Kirazlı, Ağı Dağı & Çamyurt Projects
• Mexico (Morelos State): Esperanza Gold Project
• United States (Oregon): Quartz Mountain Project
• Strong balance sheet
• >$350m in cash and marketable securities and no debt2
• Returned over $106m to shareholders through dividends and buybacks over past 5 years
1 Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.
2 As of May 5, 2015
Alamos Well Positioned for Low‐Cost Growth

4. 4
$10m
cost to acquire
Mulatos in 2003
$350m
free cash flow1
generated to date
$70m
initial capital raised to
build Mulatos
Long term track record of capital discipline….
1 Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.
Mulatos – Proven, Low Risk, High Reward Strategy

5. 5
1 Five year average ending 2014, including only gold producers over the full five year time frame.
Source: Capital IQ. See our disclosure on Non‐GAAP measures on page 2 of this presentation.
Long Term Track Record of Delivering Shareholder Value
10.9% 10.7% 10.7%
5.3%
3.4%
0.1%
‐0.3% ‐0.6% ‐0.7% ‐1.0%
‐3.4%
‐6.6%
‐7.9%
‐18.6%‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
15
SMF AGI CG NEM ELD G YRI BTO IMG NGD AEM ABX AUQ K
Return on Equity ‐ Five Year Average1

6. We intend on replicating this success many times over…
6
Strong Growth Profile – Proven Strategy
Open pit, heap leach
projects
• Low capital intensity
• Low operating costs
• Low technical risk
• High ROI
Cerro Pelon & La Yaqui
Kirazlı
Ağı Dağı
Çamyurt
Esperanza
Quartz Mountain
Total acquisition cost
• <$150m
• ~$20/oz of
resource1,2
…all generate cash flow at current gold price
1 See mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.
2 Based on total measured and indicated and inferred mineral resources at time of acquisition.

7. 7
Combined annual production potential > 700k oz
See mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.
Producing Assets in Top Mining JurisdictionsProducing Assets in Top Mining Jurisdictions
Strong Development PipelineStrong Development Pipeline
ExplorationExploration
• Young‐Davidson (Canada): Flagship long‐life underground gold mine
• Mulatos (Mexico): Flagship open pit, heap leach operation
• El Chanate (Mexico): Stable open pit, heap leach operation
• Kirazlı, Ağı Dağı & Çamyurt (Turkey): Advanced stage, low cost, open pit,
heap leach development projects
• Esperanza (Mexico): Low cost, open pit, heap leach development project
• Lynn Lake (Canada): Advanced high‐grade open pit gold project
• Quartz Mountain (USA): large inferred mineral resource
• Orion (Mexico): 50% ownership with Minera Frisco S.A. de C.V.
Alamos + AuRico Merger: Solid Platform for Growth

8. 8
• High quality, diversified gold production from three North American mines
• Two flagship, long‐life mines in Young‐Davidson and Mulatos
• Leading intermediate gold producer with a robust growth profile and diversified asset base
• Enhanced capital markets attractiveness
• Increased trading liquidity
• Strong combined balance sheet with increased financial flexibility
• Superior cash flow growth profile
• Significant synergies
• Significant unlocked value in Kemess project
• Diversified royalty revenues
• Strong management team
• Extensive portfolio of low cost development stage assets in safe jurisdictions that can be
advanced in a disciplined manner
• Combination of two complementary and highly experienced teams
• Significant open pit, heap leach and underground mining expertise
Diversified
production
Leading growth
profile
Significant re‐rating
potential
Strong financial
position
Complementary
management teams
Exposure to
SpinCo
Alamos + AuRico Merger: Benefits to All Shareholders

9. 9
Alamos + AuRico Merger: Best In Class Portfolio
MULATOS
2015E Au Production 150‐170k oz
2015E Au Cash Costs (1) US$800/oz
2P Au Reserves 1.7MM oz
Total Au Resources 4.8MM oz
EL CHANATE
2015E Au Production 65‐75k oz
2015E Au Cash Costs US$675‐775/oz
2P Au Reserves 0.6MM oz
Total Au Resources 0.7MM oz
QUARTZ MOUNTAIN
Stage
Advanced
Exploration
Total Au Resources 2.8MM oz
YOUNG‐DAVIDSON
2015E Au Production 160‐180k oz
2015E Au Cash Costs US$675‐775/oz
2P Au Reserves 3.8MM oz
Total Au Resources 5.6MM oz
AĞI DAĞI
Stage Permitting
Est. Annual Production 143k oz
Est. Cash Costs US$611/oz
Total Au Resources 1.9MM oz
Producing Assets
Exploration / Development Assets
Toronto
Head Office
ESPERANZA
Stage Permitting
Est. Annual Production +100k oz
Est. Cash Costs ~US$500/oz
Total Au Resources 1.1MM oz
KIRAZLI
Stage Permitting
Est. Annual Production 99k oz
Est. Cash Costs US$515/oz
Total Au Resources 0.9MM oz
ÇAMYURT
Stage Resource Dev.
Total Au Resources 0.6MM oz
LYNN LAKE JV (25%)(2)
Stage Feasibility
Est. Annual Production 145k oz
Est. Cash Costs US$530/oz
Att. Au Resources 1.2MM oz
ORION JV (50%)
Stage Exploration
Att. Au Resources 0.1MM oz
Note: See Alamos mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.
For AuRico, refer to www.auricogold.com/operations/reserves‐and‐resources.
(1) Exclusive of royalties. (2) Option to earn an additional 35% interest in the project.

10. 10
Alamos + AuRico Merger: Larger, Diversified
Portfolio in Safe Political Jurisdictions
Source: Company disclosure and analyst estimates.
(1) Adjusted for 1.5% NSR royalty on Young‐Davidson transferred to SpinCo.
Canada
50%
Mexico
33%
Turkey
17%
Pro Forma Asset Breakdown(1)Pro Forma Asset Breakdown(1)
Consensus NPV by GeographyConsensus NPV by Geography
Production
77%
Development
23%
Consensus NPV by StageConsensus NPV by Stage

11. Operation: Open pit, heap leach +
Mill (high grade underground)
Location: Sonora State, Mexico
Ownership: 100% interest
Stage: Producing
Total Throughput: 17,850 tpd
• Mine life of 7 years based on YE 2014 reserves
• Generated ~$350m in free cash flow to date
• Large exploration package (30,325 ha/117 sq. miles)
11
Mulatos Mine – Our Foundation
1 Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.

12. 12
Mulatos Mine – Q1 Highlights & 2015 Guidance
• Total cash costs 7% below full year guidance in Q1 2015
• Heap leach grades stacked 15% above annual budget
• Strip ratio 52% below annual budget
• Mill improvements on track for stronger high grade production in H2 2015
• Recoveries expected to increase to 75%
• Mill throughput >550 tpd in H2 – ~42kt of high grade stockpiles at end of April
Operating Data Q1 2015A 2015E Guidance % Difference2
Production oz Au 38,000 150,000 ‐ 170,000 ‐
Cash Operating Costs1
US$/oz $728 $800 ‐9%
Total Cash Costs1
US$/oz $805 $865 ‐7%
All‐in Sustaining Costs1
US$/oz $1,115 $1,100 +1%
Combined Gold Recovery % 72% 74% ‐2%
Combined Throughput tpd 17,500 17,850 ‐2%
Average Grade – Heap Leach Ore g/t Au 0.92 0.80 +15%
Average Grade – Mill Ore g/t Au 10.37 9.5 +9%
Waste‐to‐Ore Ratio 0.61:1 1.27:1 ‐52%
1 Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.
2 Percentage change is based on mid‐point of guidance where applicable.

13. 13
Mulatos Mine – Lower Costs in 2016
• 2016 open pit, heap leach costs to decrease with higher grade & lower strip
• La Yaqui expected to add low cost production growth starting late 2016
1 See mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.
Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.
0.80
0.94
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
2015 Guidance Mineral Reserve Grade
(2014)
18%
higher
Open pit, heap leach grade1 (g/t Au)
1.27
1.03
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
2015 Guidance LOM Remaining Strip
Ratio (2014)
Strip ratio1
19%
lower

14. 14
Mulatos Mine – Cerro Pelon & La Yaqui Satellite Projects
Incremental low‐cost production growth starting Q4 2016
• Production additive
• Independent crushing circuit & heap leach pads
• Average production of 33,000 oz per year over 5 year mine life
• Peak production of ~50,000 oz per year
• Combined mineral reserve grade of 1.6 g/t Au double 2015 budget
• Robust economics
• Modest initial capex of $21m; minimal sustaining capex
• Combined LOM total cash costs of $490/oz
• Initial production in Q4 2016
• Acquired surface rights to allow for the start of permitting and development activities
• Initial production expected from La Yaqui in Q4 2016 and Cerro Pelon in 2017
1 See mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.
2 Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.

15. Projects: Open pit, heap leach
Location: Turkey
Ownership: 100% interest
Stage: Development
• Kirazlı & Ağı Dağı EIA approvals reinstated
• New mining law supportive of industry
• Forestry fees recently reduced
15
Turkey – Low‐Cost Production Growth
1 Please refer to press release dated June 28, 2012 on Turkey PFS and Çamyurt initial mineral resource estimate.
2 Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.
3 See mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.
Çamyurt significant upside to 2012 PFS
• Pit‐constrained M&I mineral resource
of 508,641 oz grading 0.89 g/t Au3
• Grades 62% higher than Ağı Dağı
2012 Positive Pre‐feasibility Study – Summary1
Kirazlı Ağı Dağı
Mine Life Years 5 7
Average Annual Production oz Au 99,000 143,000
oz Ag 601,000 271,000
Average Throughput tpd 15,000 30,000
Average grade g/t Au 0.75 0.55
Total Cash Costs2
US$/oz $515 $611
Pre‐production Capex US$m $146.1 $278.3
Total Capex US$m $165.7 $326.6

16. Project: Open pit, heap leach
Location: Morelos State, Mexico
Ownership: 100% interest
Stage: Development
• Excellent infrastructure; low technical risk
• Low capital intensity and operating costs
• Average annual production potential > 100,000 oz
• All‐in sustaining costs expected to be lowest quartile1
16
Esperanza Gold Project – Significant Growth Potential
Cutoff Tonnes Grade Contained Ounces
(g/t Au) (000) (g/t Au) (g/t Ag) (000 Au) (000 Ag)
Measured &
Indicated2 0.3 41,052 0.88 7.76 1,158 10,243
Inferred2
0.3 862 0.72 13.71 20 380
1 Please refer to Cautionary Notes on non‐GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures.
2 See mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.

17. Quartz Butte
Crone Hill
17
Quartz Mountain Property – Compelling Opportunity
1 See mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.
2 Historic column recovery tests for gold at Quartz Mountain varied between 74% and 88% for the felsic rock hosted mineralization; see Orsa Ventures press release dated February 12, 2013
Location: Oregon, United States
Ownership: Right to earn a 100% interest
Stage: Advanced Exploration
• Located on northern extension of the prolific Basin and Range
Province of Nevada
• Low strip ratio, favourable metallurgy2
• 8,000m exploration program currently underway
• Acquisition cost $3.5m. Additional C$3m due on completion of
feasibility study & C$15m or 2% NSR upon successful permitting
Inferred Resource1
Cutoff Tonnes Grade Contained Ounces
(g/t Au) (000) (g/t Au) (000 Au)
Total Oxide 0.21 64,148 0.63 1,297
Total Sulphide 0.58 46,300 1.04 1,551
Total Project n/a 110,448 0.80 2,848

18. • Mid‐tier gold producer with strong, low‐cost growth profile
• Robust balance sheet – fully funded development pipeline
• Long term track record of delivering shareholder value
• Catalysts
 Q2 2014: Acquired surface rights at La Yaqui & Cerro Pelon
 Q3 2014: Transitioned to underground mining at San Carlos
 Q2 2015: Ağı Dağı EIA approval reinstated
 Q2 2015: Kirazlı EIA approval reinstated
• June 24 2015: AuRico Gold merger shareholder vote
• Mid‐2015: Closing of merger with AuRico Gold
18
Alamos – Investment Case

19. 19
Appendices

20. 20
Cash & Marketable Securities1 ~US$350 million
Working Capital1 ~US$410 million
Debt None
Gold Hedging None
Semi‐Annual Dividend US$0.03/share
1 Unaudited – management’s estimate as of May 5, 2015.
2 As of June 2, 2015.
Shares Outstanding1 127.4 million
Warrants1 7.2 million
Employee Options1 5.6 million
Fully Diluted 140.2 million
Recent Share Price (TSX)2 C$8.19
Market Capitalization ~C$1.0 billion
Robust Balance Sheet

21. Executive and Management Team
John A. McCluskey President and Chief Executive Officer
Jamie Porter Chief Financial Officer
Manley Guarducci Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Charles Tarnocai Vice President, Corporate Development
Greg Fisher Vice President, Finance
Christine Barwell Vice President, Human Resources
Andrew Cormier Vice President, Development and Construction
Aoife McGrath Vice President, Exploration
Scott Parsons Vice President, Investor Relations
21
Board of Directors and Executive and Management Team
Board of Directors
Paul J. Murphy Chairman
John A. McCluskey Director
David Gower Director
Ken Stowe Director
Anthony Garson Director
David Fleck Director

22. 22
Alamos + AuRico Merger – Transaction Summary
(1) Equal to AuRico’s closing price on the New York Stock Exchange on April 10, 2015.
Transaction
Summary
• Merger of equals transaction with 50/50 pro forma ownership
• Total transaction value of ~US$1.5 billion
• SpinCo (to be distributed to all MergeCo shareholders) comprised of:
‐ the Kemess project located in British Columbia;
‐ a 1.5% NSR royalty on the Young‐Davidson mine in Ontario;
‐ the existing 2% and 1% NSR royalties on the Fosterville and Stawell mines in Australia; and
‐ US$20 million in cash
• MergeCo to retain a 4.9% interest in SpinCo
• Alamos private placement into AuRico for 9.9% interest at a price of US$2.99 per share(1), for total gross
proceeds to AuRico of ~US$83 million (not contingent on completion of merger transaction)
Consideration
• Each Alamos share will be exchanged for 1 MergeCo share, 1 SpinCo share and US$0.0001 cash
• Each AuRico share will be exchanged for 0.5046 MergeCo shares and 0.5046 SpinCo shares
Conditions
• Structured as a plan of arrangement
• 66⅔% shareholder approvals required for both companies
• Customary regulatory and court approvals
Governance
• MergeCo board to consist of ten members, with equal contribution from both companies
• MergeCo to be headed by John McCluskey as CEO and Alan Edwards as Chairman
• SpinCo to be headed by Chris Richter as CEO, Robert Chausse as CFO and Scott Perry as Executive Chairman
Other
• Unanimous support of the Board of Directors of both Alamos and AuRico
• Senior officer and director lock‐ups
• Customary non‐solicitation covenants, subject to normal fiduciary outs, and right to match
• US$28.4 million termination fee payable to Alamos, US$37.5 million termination fee payable to AuRico
Timeline • Shareholder meetings and transaction expected to close in Q2

23. 23
MergeCo Capitalization Summary
Source: Company disclosure and FactSet.
Note: Based on audited annual financial statements for each company for the period ended December 31, 2014.
(1) MergeCo figures calculated based on Alamos’ April 10, 2015 closing price on the NYSE. MergeCo cash balance adjusted for US$20MM cash transferred to SpinCo.
Units Alamos AuRico MergeCo(1)
Share Price (NYSE)
As of April 10, 2015
(US$) $5.89 $2.99 $5.89
Basic Shares Outstanding (MM) 127.4 253.5 254.8
Basic Market Capitalization (US$MM) $750 $758 $1,501
Cash & Short‐Term
Investments
(US$MM) $358 $89 $427
Debt (US$MM) ‐‐ $333 $333
Enterprise Value (US$MM) $392 $1,002 $1,406

24. 0.59 0.45
1.04 1.56
0.92 0.96
1.52
3.68 3.60
1.58 1.93
1.66
3.18 4.40
4.98
5.08
6.67 6.85
1.92 1.69
2.05
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.37
2.03 1.73
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Au oz (millions)
P&P Mineral Reserves
M&I Mineral Resources
Inferred Mineral Resources
24
Large Resource Base Enables Production Growth1
1 Please see mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.

25. 5
11 14
8 8
13
29 2820
17
29
38
42
42
52 54
18
21
22 21
20
20
16 14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Au oz per 1,000 shares
P&P Reserves (per 1,000 shares)
Measured & Indicated (per 1,000 shares)
Inferred (per 1,000 shares)
25
Resource Growth on an Aggregate and Per Share Basis1
1 Please see mineral reserve and resource estimates and associated footnotes in appendix.

26. Escondida
+1 opt intercepts
Mineralized trends
LEGEND
PdA
Extension
East Estrella
Cerro Pelon
Estrella
El Salto/
Mina Vieja
El Victor
Gap
PdA
San Carlos
April 2013
Mulatos: The High‐Grade Story Continues

27. 27
Mulatos
Alteration Map
Mulatos District

28. • Completed first Annual Sustainability Report pursuant to GRI framework
• Our Objectives
• As we pursue further growth, we will continue to measure our success as an organization by our
performance in achievement of our sustainability objectives:
• protecting the health and well‐being of our employees
• creating shared value with our host communities and countries
• ensuring that our operations are net‐positive for the environment
• Over the years, Alamos has been recognized for its achievements in these areas:
• Clean Industry Certification from PROFEPA
• Alamos was certified as an Industria Limpia (clean industry) in recognition of the excellence of
environmental management at Mulatos.
• CSR Award from Mexican Center for Philanthropy (CEMEFI)
• Signifies exceptional record of CSR performance; 2013 marks the 5th consecutive year for Alamos
• Certification under International Cyanide Management Code
• Voluntary initiative for gold mining industry and producers and transporters of cyanide; Alamos
certified since March 2013
• ISO 9001:2008 Certification
• International standard for quality management mining systems; 3rd year in a row for Alamos
28
Sustainability

29. 29
2014 Mulatos Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves
(1) The Company’s mineral reserves as at December 31, 2014 are classified in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining Metallurgy and Petroleum’s “CIM Standards on Mineral Resources
and Reserves, Definition and Guidelines” as per Canadian Securities Administrator’s NI 43‐101 requirements.
(2) Tonnes are rounded to the closest “000s” and grades are rounded to the closest “0.00”s.
(3) The mineral reserve estimate for the Mulatos Mine incorporates the Estrella, Escondida, Puerto del Aire, El Salto, Mina Vieja, El Victor, and San Carlos areas.
(4) Mineral reserve cut‐off grade for the Mulatos Mine is determined as a net of process value of $0.10 per tonne for each model block. The determination was based on a $1,250 per ounce gold
price, a December 31, 2014 resource and recovery model, and the 2015 budget costs based on the actual cost figures from current mining operations.
(5) Pit‐contained mineral reserves for the San Carlos include 740,000 tonnes grading 1.33 g/t Au for 31,566 ounces.
(6) Underground reserves are design‐contained and reported at a 3.27 g/t Au cut‐off grade, with a 5% mining loss and 10% dilution at a 0.0 g/t Au grade, a 75% mill recovery, and an incremental
cut‐off grade of 1.16 g/t Au.
(7) Mineral reserve gold cut‐off grade for the La Yaqui Pit is a 0.30 g/t gold. The determination was based on a $1,250 per ounce gold price, a May 2009 resource model, gold recovery from mining
operations, and the 2015 budget costs based on the actual cost figures from mining operations.
(8) Mineral reserve gold cut‐off grade for the Cerro Pelon Pit is determined as a net of process value of $0.10 per tonne, for each model block. The determination was based on a $1,250 per ounce
gold price, a November 2009 resource model, gold recovery from mining operations, and the 2015 budget costs based on the actual cost figures from mining operations.
Mulatos Mine
3,4,5
6,046 1.05 204,549 29,979 0.92 883,429 36,025 0.94 1,087,978
UG Reserve
6
59 5.13 9,680 620 6.87 136,746 679 6.72 146,426
Existing stockpiles 5,720 1.51 277,166 5,720 1.51 277,166
La Yaqui
7
1,574 1.58 79,826 1,574 1.58 79,826
Cerro Pelon
8
2,617 1.67 140,525 2,617 1.67 140,525
TOTAL 11,825 1.29 491,395 34,790 1.11 1,240,526 46,615 1.16 1,731,921
Contained
Ounces
Reserve Area
Tonnes
(000s)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Contained
Ounces
Tonnes
(000s)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Contained
Ounces
Tonnes
(000s)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Proven and Probable Reserves
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
as at December 31, 2014
Proven
2
Probable
2
Proven + Probable
2

30. 30
2014 Total Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
(1) The updated mineral resource estimate at Mulatos incorporates the Estrella, Escondida, Puerto del Aire, El Salto, Mina Vieja, El Victor, and San Carlos areas.
(2) In‐pit measured and indicated mineral resource blocks are exclusive of pit‐contained reserves.
(3) Measured and indicated and inferred mineral resources outside of the Mulatos Mine have no economic restrictions and are tabulated by gold cut‐off grade.
(4) Measured and indicated and inferred resources at Carricito and El Realito are pit‐constrained, applying a $1,400/oz gold price, 55° pit slopes, and a $2.52/t mining cost, $9.11/t process +
G&A cost.
(5) Measured and indicated and inferred resources for the Ağı Dağı project, which includes the Baba, Ayitepe, Deli, and Fire Tower zones, are pit constrained with cut‐off determined as a net of
process value of $0.10 per tonne, for each model block. The determination was based on a US$1,400 per ounce gold price and a US$22.00 per ounce silver price, a December 31, 2013
resource model, pit slope angles ranging from 40° to 48°, and estimated costs and recoveries based on the pre‐feasibility study specifications. The resources were then tabulated by gold
cut‐off grade.
(6) Measured and indicated, and inferred resources for the Kirazli project, including Rockpile, are pit constrained with cut‐off determined as a net of process value of $0.10 per tonne, for each
model block. The determination was based on a US$1,400 per ounce gold price and a US$22.00 per ounce silver price, a December 31, 2013 resource model, pit slope angles ranging from
38° to 48°, and estimated costs and recoveries based on the pre‐feasibility study specifications. The resources were then tabulated by gold cut‐off grade.
(7) Measured and indicated and inferred resources for the Çamyurt project are pit‐constrained with cut‐off determined as a net of process value of $0.10 per tonne, for each model block. The
determination was based on a $1,400 per ounce gold price and a $22.00/oz silver price, a December 31, 2013 resource model, average pit slope angle of 45°, and estimated costs and
recoveries based on the pre‐feasibility study specifications. The resources were then tabulated by gold cut‐off grade.
(8) Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Mulatos 0.5 76,850 1.06 2,624,686
San Carlos UG 2.5 505 5.64 91,513
El Realito 0.3 1,581 1.06 53,653
Carricito 0.3 1,355 0.82 35,687
Esperanza 0.4 34,352 0.98 8.09 1,083,366 8,936,201
Total 114,643 1.06 8.09 3,888,905 8,936,201
Ağı Dağı 0.2 90,052 0.59 4.09 1,694,736 11,849,336
Kirazli 0.2 32,734 0.72 8.74 757,877 9,201,790
Çamyurt 0.2 17,721 0.89 6.14 508,641 3,496,404
Total 140,507 0.66 5.36 2,961,254 24,547,530
Combined Total 6,850,159 33,483,731
Mexico
Turkey
Total Measured & Indicated Mineral Resources
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
as at December 31, 2014
Cut‐off
(g/t Au)
Tonnes
(000s)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Grade
(g/t Ag)
Contained
Ounces Au
Contained
Ounces Ag

31. (1) The updated mineral resource estimate at Mulatos incorporates the Estrella, Escondida, Puerto del Aire, El Salto, Mina Vieja, El Victor, and San Carlos areas.
(2) In‐pit measured and indicated mineral resource blocks are exclusive of pit‐contained reserves.
(3) Measured and indicated and inferred mineral resources outside of the Mulatos Mine have no economic restrictions and are tabulated by gold cut‐off grade.
(4) Measured and indicated and inferred resources at Carricito and El Realito are pit‐constrained, applying a $1,400/oz gold price, 55° pit slopes, and a $2.52/t mining cost, $9.11/t process + G&A cost.
(5) Measured and indicated and inferred resources for the Ağı Dağı project, which includes the Baba, Ayitepe, Deli, and Fire Tower zones, are pit constrained with cut‐off determined as a net of process
value of $0.10 per tonne, for each model block. The determination was based on a US$1,400 per ounce gold price and a US$22.00 per ounce silver price, a December 31, 2013 resource model, pit
slope angles ranging from 40° to 48°, and estimated costs and recoveries based on the pre‐feasibility study specifications. The resources were then tabulated by gold cut‐off grade.
(6) Measured and indicated, and inferred resources for the Kirazli project, including Rockpile, are pit constrained with cut‐off determined as a net of process value of $0.10 per tonne, for each model
block. The determination was based on a US$1,400 per ounce gold price and a US$22.00 per ounce silver price, a December 31, 2013 resource model, pit slope angles ranging from 38° to 48°, and
estimated costs and recoveries based on the pre‐feasibility study specifications. The resources were then tabulated by gold cut‐off grade.
(7) Measured and indicated and inferred resources for the Çamyurt project are pit‐constrained with cut‐off determined as a net of process value of $0.10 per tonne, for each model block. The
determination was based on a $1,400 per ounce gold price and a $22.00/oz silver price, a December 31, 2013 resource model, average pit slope angle of 45°, and estimated costs and recoveries based
on the pre‐feasibility study specifications. The resources were then tabulated by gold cut‐off grade.
(8) Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
31
2014 Total Inferred Mineral Resources
Mulatos 0.5 6,629 0.98 208,576
San Carlos UG 2.5 403 4.53 58,743
El Realito 0.3 91 0.73 2,139
Carricito 0.3 900 0.74 21,528
Esperanza 0.4 718 0.8 15.04 18,375 347,192
Total 8,741 1.1 15.04 309,361 347,192
Ağı Dağı 0.2 16,760 0.46 2.85 245,214 1,533,608
Kirazli 0.2 5,689 0.59 8.96 107,635 1,638,365
Çamyurt 0.2 2,791 0.95 5.77 84,982 518,058
Total 25,240 0.54 4.55 437,831 3,690,031
Quartz Mountain
0.21 oxide
0.58 sulphide
110,448 0.8 2,848,000
3,595,192 4,037,223
Contained
Ounces Ag
Mexico
Turkey
United States
Combined Total
Total Inferred Mineral Resources
1,3,4,5,6,7,8
as at December 31, 2014
Cut‐off
(g/t Au)
Tonnes
(000s)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Grade
(g/t Ag)
Contained
Ounces Au

32. Scott K. Parsons, CFA
Vice President, Investor Relations
416.368.9932 x 439
sparsons@alamosgold.com