- The document provides an update on AuRico Metals Inc. for March 2016. - It discusses AuRico's royalty portfolio, including recent production increases from assets like Young-Davidson and Fosterville. The Kemess gold-copper project is highlighted, with details on its feasibility study update showing strong economics. - AuRico reviews its capital structure, management team, and provides an overview of its net asset value and the embedded royalty value at Kemess, concluding that AuRico remains undervalued compared to peers.

1. Corporate Update
March 2016

2. Forward-Looking Statements
2
Cautionary Statement
This presentation contains certain information that constitutes “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements” as defined under Canadian and U.S. securities laws. All statements in
this presentation, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. The words “expect”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “contemplate”, “may”, “could”, “will”, “intend”, “estimate”,
“forecast”, “target”, “budget”, “schedule” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this presentation include, without limitation, information as to
our strategy, projected gold production from the Young-Davidson, Hemlo – Williams, Eagle River, Fosterville and Stawell mines, which are not owned by the Company, project timelines, the planned
2% net smelter return royalty on future production from the Kemess Underground mine, projected exploration results, resource and reserve estimates, projected production and costs of the Kemess
Underground mine, other statements that express our expectations or estimates of future performance, value growth, value creation and shareholder returns, the success of exploration activities,
mineral inventory including the Company’s ability to delineate additional resources and reserves as a result of such programs, mineral reserves and mineral resources and anticipated grades,
exploration expenditures, costs and timing of any future development, costs and timing of future exploration and the presence of and continuity of metals at Kemess East at modeled grades.
Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of factors and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by management at the time of making such statements, are inherently
subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the
forward-looking statements. Such factors and assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements in this presentation include, but are not limited to: changes to current estimates of mineral
reserves and resources; fluctuations in the price of gold and copper; changes in foreign exchange rates (particularly the Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar); performance of the Young-Davidson, Hemlo –
Williams, Eagle River, Fosterville and Stawell mines, which may impact the future cash flows associated with the Company’s royalty holdings; the impact of inflation; employee relations; litigation;
uncertainty with the Company’s ability to secure capital to execute its business plans; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development, including the risks of obtaining necessary
licenses, permits, authorizations and/or approvals from the appropriate regulatory authorities for the Kemess Underground project; contests over title to properties; changes in national and local
government legislation in Canada and other jurisdictions in which the Company does or may carry on business in the future; risk of loss due to sabotage and civil disturbances; the impact of global
liquidity and credit availability and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows; as well as business opportunities that may be pursued by the Company.
Actual results and developments are likely to differ, and may differ materially, from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. Such statements are
based on a number of assumptions, including those noted elsewhere in this document, which may prove to be incorrect. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of
future performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by these cautionary statements.
There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements or information will prove to be accurate, accordingly, investors should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements or
information contained herein. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources
This presentation uses the terms "measured", "indicated" and "inferred” resources. We advise investors that while those terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. “Inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be
assumed that all or any part of an inferred resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or
other economic studies. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. United States
investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.
Qualified Person as Defined by National Instrument 43-101
John Fitzgerald, Chief Operating Officer for AuRico Metals Inc. has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained within this presentation. Mr. Fitzgerald is a “Qualified
Person” as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

3. 3.2 4.0 3.2
Royalty Portfolio Kemess Gold – Copper Project
 Young-Davidson ramp-up
progressing well
 Fosterville reserves 34%
 Hemlo reserves 12%
 Eagle River reserves 13%
 Stawell resources 14%
5.7 to 6.1Koz in 2016
attributable production (per
guidance)
… and gold is 15%+ YTD
 Positive feasibility update:
 Resource update (Moz AuE1):
 Delineation of high grade
core at Kemess East
 Environmental Assessment
Application has been
submitted to the BC EAO
AMI: Recent Developments
3
After-tax NPV (5%)
C$289M
IRR of
12.6%
P&P M&I Inferred

4. Capital Structure
TSX Ticker Symbol AMI
Share Price (as of Mar. 21, 2016) C$0.71
Shares Outstanding 130M
Cash (as of Dec. 31, 2015) C$11M
Market Capitalization C$93M
Management Team
Chris Richter President & CEO
Robert Chausse Chief Financial Officer
John Fitzgerald Chief Operating Officer
Chris Rockingham Vice President, Development
Harold Bent Director, Environment
Susan Craig Advisor, Government &
Community Affairs
Board of Directors
Richard Colterjohn Scott Perry
John McCluskey Anne Day
Anthony Garson Janice Stairs
Joseph Spiteri Chris Richter
Major Shareholders1
Sandstorm Gold 15%
Alamos Gold 11%
Van Eck Associates 10%
Donald Smith & Company 4%
AMI Management & Directors 3%
4
Market Overview
Analyst Coverage & Target Price
National Bank (Adam Melnyk) C$1.00
Macquarie (Michael Siperco) C$1.15
Scotia Capital (Mark Turner) C$1.30
Mackie Research (Barry Allan) C$1.50

5. Property Locations
5
All properties located in stable, desirable mining jurisdictions
Development Property
CANADA
AUSTRALIA
KEMESS (100%)
British Columbia, Canada
YOUNG-DAVIDSON (1.5% NSR)
Ontario, Canada STAWELL (1% NSR)
Victoria, Australia
FOSTERVILLE (2% NSR)
Victoria, Australia
Royalty
LEVIATHAN (1% NSR)
Victoria, Australia
KEMESS UG
(Potential Royalty or Stream)
British Columbia, Canada
HEMLO – WILLIAMS (0.25% NSR)
Ontario, Canada
HEMLO – DAVID BELL (1.5% NSR)
Ontario, Canada
EAGLE RIVER (0.5% NSR)
Ontario, Canada
Actively pursuing accretive opportunities to grow royalty portfolio
Producing Royalty

6. Risk – Reward
Source: S&P Capital IQ
Precious Metal Royalty companies include: FNV, OR (since inception), RGLD, SLW, and SSL
Gold/Copper Developers include: Augusta, CUU, GUY, Lumina, NCU, NGQ, R, RMC (since inception), RMX, TXG, WRN 6
Goal is to Deliver Superior Shareholder Returns in Any Market
“Bull Market” “Bear Market”
53%
-7%
148%
-25%
-40%
0%
40%
80%
120%
160%
2009 - 2011 2011 - 2015
Precious Metal Royalty Companies Gold/Copper Developers
Annualized Returns Through Bull and Bear Markets
"Bear Markets always turn into Bull Markets and you need to be positioned for when they turn.“ – Ross Beaty

7. Royalty Portfolio Overview
7
Royalty Mineral Inventory (years)1
Royalty EBITDA (C$ M) at Various Gold Prices2
Royalty Value Drivers
AuRico
Royalties
Asset Stage 
Geographic Location 
Core Asset of Operator 
High-Quality Operator 
Precious Metals 
Mine Life 
Cost Profile 
Scale of Production 
Exploration Upside 
US$
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
$1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600
Kemess UG (dev't stage) Stawell Eagle River Hemlo Fosterville YD
0 5 10 15 20 25
Kemess East(3)
Kemess UG(3)
Stawell
Eagle River
Hemlo
Fosterville
YD
Royalty Mineral Inventory (years)
P&P
M&I
Inferred

8. Kemess (100% Owned) Overview
8
Past Present Future
Kemess South (Production:
1998 – 2011)
C$1 Billion of Infrastructure
on Care and Maintenance
Kemess Underground (KUG)
& Kemess East (KE)
3Moz
of Gold
Produced
(at 0.6 g/t)
750Mlbs
of Copper
Produced
(at 0.2%)
 KUG Feasibility Update
 KE Resource Update
 Environmental Application
Submission
 30,000m drill campaign in
2015 included intersection
of 772m at 0.465g/t Au
and 0.365% Cu (0.72%
CuE)1
(4.6Moz AuE1)
3,215
4,028
3,197
KUG + KE: AuE Ounces ('000)
P&P Indicated Inferred

9. Kemess UG – Feasibility Study Update
9
• Meaningful production: 238Koz Gold Equivalent (AuE) annually for first 5 years, 207Koz
AuE over life of mine (LOM) (12 years)1
• Low cost: All-in Sustaining Costs2 per AuE of US$682/oz for first 5 years, US$718/oz LOM
• Solid economics:
• After-tax NPV (5%) of C$289M and IRR of 12.6% assuming $1,250/oz Au, $2.50/lb
Cu, and a C$/US$ of 0.75
• After-tax NPV (5%) becomes C$421M and IRR becomes 15.4% at $3/lb Cu
• Pre-commercial production capital3 of C$603M (US$452M)
• Capital reduction opportunity exists by leasing all or a portion of the C$86M in
underground mobile equipment purchases
• Low risk: Project infrastructure is already in place (processing facility, grid power, access
road, camp, admin and maintenance facilities, etc.)
• Significant upside: Large (246Mt) of M&I resource (including 107Mt of reserves) situated
vertical to the extraction level (of the planned KUG panel cave)
• Potential further upside from Kemess East (including high grade core) – which
remains open in several directions
• Location: One of the best mining jurisdictions: British Columbia, Canada
• Advanced: Expect to enter 180 day Enviro. Assessment review period in early April

10. Kemess: Initial Capital
10
Kemess
Advantages
 C$603M (US$452M) in pre-commercial production capex
 “Low risk” capex given infrastructure in place; Proven logistics
 87% of capital expenditures are C$ denominated
 Capex is heavily weighted to final 2 years prior to commercial prod’n
 Opportunity to reduce capex through equipment leasing (C$86M)
 Project financing opportunity (marketable clean concentrate)

11. Kemess: Production and Costs
11
Low Cost
Mining
 Total LOM cash costs of US$639 and AISC of US$718 per AuE
 AISC of US$682/oz over first 5 years
 Caving initiated in the highest value ore
 Low ‘break-even’ in early years allows for rapid debt
repayment
 Payback period of 3.9 years at base case assumptions
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Annual Gold Equivalent Production vs. USD AISC
Gold Equivalent Production AISC(USD)

12. Reserves and Resources (all categories) of 10.9Moz AuE Property-Wide
Kemess East – High Grade Discovery
12
~51Mt in high grade core of Kemess East with Cu grade 69% higher and Au grade
23% higher than KUG Reserves
K UG
K East
K South

13. Kemess Alternatives
Kemess
Advantages
 Attractive economics
 “2/3rds built” (~C$1B of infrastructure)
 Moderate capex (mostly UG dev’t)
 Proven (‘98 – ’11)
 Advanced stage
 ~55/45 Au/Cu split
 BC government very
supportive
 Fully unencumbered
 Clean concentrate
13
Smelter (offtake-linked)
Financing
Joint Venture /
Earn-in
Project Financing
Royalty / Stream Private Equity

14. Net Asset Value per Share
14
* Consensus royalty NAVs do not yet reflect positive resource updates, production
guidance or recent gold price appreciation
** Consensus Kemess value will be updated upon release of Kemess Underground
Feasibility Study Update and Kemess East Resource Update (imminent)
Share Price
0.74
0.85
0.09
0.43
1.33
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Royalties* Kemess** Cash Corporate Outflow

15. Kemess – Embedded Royalty Value
15
ILLUSTRATIVE NSR (2%)
Assumptions
Gold Price $1,250 per ounce
Copper Price $2.50 per pound
Silver Price $16 per ounce
Foreign Exchange 0.75 USD per CAD
Up to $9M in Annual Cash
Flow (KUG Only1)
$45M NAV
(KUG Reserves Only1)
 Kemess is 100% owned and 100% unencumbered (no royalties or streams)
 Presents material “organic” royalty-growth opportunity
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
In-Situ Metal Value
(2%)
(C$ ‘000)
Reserves M&I Inferred
KE
KUG

16. Undervalued…
16
P/NAV vs. Development Companies
P/NAV vs. Royalty Companies
2.0 x
1.2 x
1.4 x
1.2 x
1.3 x
1.0 x
1.3 x
0.8 x
0.6 x
0.0 x
0.5 x
1.0 x
1.5 x
2.0 x
Franco-Nevada Osisko Royalties Silver Wheaton Sandstorm Gold Royal Gold Altius Minerals Average AMI (Royalties
Only)
AMI
(Consensus)
0.4 x
0.6 x
0.4 x
0.3 x
0.2 x
0.6 x
0.8 x
0.8 x 0.7 x
0.6 x
0.4 x 0.4 x
0.3 x
0.0 x
0.2 x
0.4 x
0.6 x
0.8 x
1.0 x
Copper
Developers
Exeter Polymet Nevada
Copper
NGEx Gold
Developers
Lundin
Gold
Sabina Kaminak Dalradian Victoria Lydian Continental
Source: Peers per CIBC (Mar. 21, 2016) – Analyst consensus

17. … With Excellent Leverage to Gold
17Source: NBF Estimates (February 19, 2016); NAVPS Leverage shown for a 10% change in Au price
P/NAVPS NAVPS Leverage to Au
 Undervalued… with excellent leverage to gold

18. 18
APPENDIX

19. 19
Young-Davidson Royalty
Ramping-Up to be One of the Largest Gold Mines in Canada
Overview
Royalty 1.5% NSR
Location Ontario, Canada
Operator Alamos Gold
Asset Overview Underground mine
2016E Production 170-180 Koz
Mine Life 17+ years
Resource
P&P: 3,823Koz
M&I: 1,499Koz
Inferred: 321Koz
20
17
14
13 13
10
9
7
5 5
Detour
Young-
Davidson
Macassa
Phoenix
Canadian
Malartic
Casa
Berardi
NewAfton
Holt-
Hollaway
Seabee
Timmins-Bell
Complex
Canadian Gold Mines - Reserve Life
(years)1

20. Fosterville Royalty
Overview
Royalty 2% NSR
Location Victoria, Australia
Operator Newmarket Gold
Asset Overview Underground mine
2016E Production 110-120Koz
Reserves &
Resources
P&P: 388Koz
M&I: 1,878Koz
Inferred: 665Koz
20
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Q12012
Q22012
Q32012
Q42012
Q12013
Q22013
Q32013
Q42013
Q12014
Q22014
Q32014
Q42014
Q12015
Q22015
Q32015
Q42015
 Newmarket Gold’s Flagship Mine
 2015 was 3rd consecutive year of
record production
 Significant exploration success in 2015
(e.g. Eagle Fault)
 Significant increase in 2015 reserves
and reserve grade
Record Annual Gold Production up 17% in 2015 to 123,095 ozs
Gold Ounces Produced (‘12 – ’15)

21. Hemlo – Williams Royalty
Overview
Royalty 0.25% NSR
Location Ontario, Canada
Operator Barrick Gold
Asset Overview
Underground and
Open Pit mine
2016E Production1 200 – 220Koz
Reserves &
Resources
P&P: 917Koz
M&I: 1,451Koz
Inferred: 306Koz
21
 Q4/15 production of 74Koz at Hemlo
 Hemlo in operation since 1985 and has
produced over 24Moz
 Strong history of reserve replacement
 Exploration ongoing (promising results
outlined in 2015)
Recent Production History
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

22. Eagle River Royalty
Overview
Royalty 0.5% NSR
Location Ontario, Canada
Operator Wesdome Gold Mines
Asset Overview Underground
2016E Production 43 – 47Koz
Reserves &
Resources
P&P: 300Koz
Inferred: 170Koz
22
 2015 production of 41Koz (at 7.8g/t)
 Continuous production since 1995
(over 1Moz produced)
 Long history of reserve replacement
 Significant upside from continued
exploration of identified ore zones
including 300 zone
Recent Production History
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

23. Other Royalties
23
Kemess (Potential)
David Bell (1.5% NSR)
Stawell (1% NSR)
Leviathan (1% NSR)

24. 24
2016 Outlook
 Royalty revenue: US$6.6M – US$7.1M
 After-tax: US$5.7M – US$6.1M
 Assumes gold price of US$1,150/oz; Every $50/oz change in gold price has
US$0.3M impact on revenue
 G&A: ~US$2.5M
 Kemess Care and Maintenance: ~US$4.5M
 Targeting a reduction of annualized C&M to US$3M or below by year-end
 Kemess project expenditures: US$1.5M – US$2.5M
 KUG FS update, KE resource update, EA, permitting, and First Nations
activities
 Kemess East exploration: US$1.7M
 Expect to be FCF positive in 2017 following completion of this year’s investments
and with cost cutting measures being pursued at Kemess

25. Kemess: Low Capital Intensity
25
• Potential to add additional low-cost ounces at KUG and Kemess East
Source: Canaccord Genuity (March 23, 2016).

26. 26
Mineral Reserve Estimates - Gold
Category Tonnes (000's) Grade (g/t) Ounces (000's)
Kemess Underground
Proven - - -
Probable 107,381 0.54 1,868
Total Kemess Underground P&P 107,381 0.54 1,868
Mineral Resource Estimates - Gold
Category Tonnes (000's) Grade (g/t) Ounces (000's)
Kemess Underground
Measured - - -
Indicated 139,019 0.33 1,460
Total Kemess Underground
M&I 139,019 0.33 1,460
Inferred 21,600 0.40 277
Kemess East
Measured - - -
Indicated 39,200 0.50 627
Total Kemess East
M&I 39,200 0.50 627
Inferred 109,600 0.38 1,331
Mineral Reserve and Resource Estimates – Copper and Silver
Grade Contained Metal
Category Tonnes (000’s) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) Ag (000’s) oz Cu (000’s) lbs
Kemess Underground
Probable Reserves 107,381 2.0 0.27 6,878 629,595
Indicated Resources 139,019 1.6 0.18 6,988 565,705
Inferred Resources 21,600 1.7 0.22 1,179 104,700
Kemess East
Indicated Resources 39,200 2.0 0.40 2,512 344,000
Inferred Resources 109,600 2.0 0.37 6,994 888,000
Kemess Reserves & Resources

27. Endnotes
27
Slide 3 – AMI Recent Developments – 1) AuE calculated on basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.50/lb Cu
Slide 4 - Market Overview
1) Per Scotia, Sedi, and company filings
Slide 7 - Royalty Portfolio Overview:
1) Reserves and resources per most recent resource updates from asset owners; Assumes annual production levels for YD, Fosterville,
Hemlo, Eagle River, Kemess UG and East, and Stawell of 200Koz, 115Koz, 200Koz, 50Koz, 140Koz, and 30Koz respectively and
recoveries of 90%, 88%, 95%, 95%, 90%, and 90% respectively
2) Annual production assumptions per mid-point of guidance; For Kemess UG, the copper price is being adjusted up/down by the same
percentage, i.e. the parallel copper price assumptions for the gold price range of $1,100 - $1,600/oz is $2.54, $2.77, $3.00, $3.23,
$3.46, $3.69
Slide 8 - Kemess Overview: AuE ounces calculated on the basis of $1,250/oz Au and $2.50/lb Cu
Slide 9 – Kemess Feasibility Study Update
1) All figures sourced from press release dated March 23, 2016 entitled “AuRico Metals Announces Positive Feasibility Study Update for
the Kemess Underground Gold – Copper Project”
2) All-in sustaining costs (“AISC”) is a non-GAAP measures that does not have a standardized meaning
3) Pre-commercial production capital represents total capital expenditures required to achieve commercial production including
capitalized pre-commercial operating costs less revenue from pre-commercial production (at pricing used in Feasibility Study)(See note 1)
Slide 12 (Kemess East):
1) AuE calculation assumes Au price of $1,250/oz and Cu price of $2.50/oz
Slide 15 – Kemess Embedded Royalty Value
1) Per 2016 Feasibility Study update
Slide 19 - YD Royalty:
1) Scotia analysis
Slide 21 - Hemlo - Williams Royalty
1) Total 2015 production for Hemlo Complex per Barrick disclosure; not 100% attributable to Williams mine