The Kemess East (KE) deposit is located approximately one kilometre east of the Kemess Underground (KUG) deposit and 6.5 kilometres north of the existing Kemess South processing plant and infrastructure. Both deposits are located on AuRico's 100%-owned Kemess property.

In January 2017, the Company announced an updated National Instrument (NI) 43-101 compliant resource estimate for the Kemess East deposit. The overall Kemess East deposit is estimated to contain Indicated Resources of 113.1 million tonnes grading 0.38% Cu and 0.46 g/t Au and Inferred Resources of 63.8 million tonnes grading 0.34% Cu and 0.31 g/t Au. The updated resource includes a high grade core estimated to contain Indicated Resources of 67.2 million tonnes grading 0.43% Cu and 0.60 g/t Au as well as Inferred Resources of 15.2 million tonnes grading 0.41% Cu and 0.51 g/t Au.

When compared with the previous Kemess East resource (March 23, 2016 press release) Indicated tonnes in the high grade core have increased by 250% reflecting success both in expanding and upgrading the resource. The high grade core at Kemess East is associated with a strong potassic alteration zone which remains open to the north and to the south as does the overall deposit.

Figure 1, below, provides plan and section views of the Kemess East deposit, with resource model blocks colour-coded by Net Smelter Return (NSR) value.

Figure 1: Section and Plan Views of Kemess East Deposit (grid squares are 200m by 200m)

Comparison to 2016 Resource Estimate

This resource estimate is an increase in the Indicated category of 73.9 million tonnes (or 188%) and a decrease in the Inferred category of 45.8 million tonnes (or -42%) compared to the March 23, 2016 resource estimate. The 2016 geological model that was the basis for the 2016 resource estimate proved to be robust with respect to the major controlling geological faults, alteration types and intensities. As with the 2016 resource estimate statistical analysis of the gold and copper grades associated with each alteration type indicated a distinct grade change between each alteration type thus constraining grade estimation boundaries. The Estimation Methodology was similar for both the 2016 and 2017 resource estimates

Figure 2: Kemess Property Map