Kivalliq Energy Corporate Presentation - January 17, 2014

Click to edit Master title style Advancing Northern Canada’s Highest Grade

Uranium Deposit January 2014

2 KIV:TSX-V | Kivalliqenergy.com

Must Be Round to Roll

Highly-Seasoned

Team

World-Class Asset

Angilak

Great Jurisdiction

Nunavut

The Right Corporate Structure

Kivalliq is Very Well-Positioned to Advance Angilak

Strong Shareholder Base − Lumina Capital: 17%

Great Access to Capital − $39.5mm raised since

Fukushima

Solid Balance Sheet − C$2mm working cap.

Solid Track Record

Regional Experience

Aggressive but Disciplined Growth

Recent Board Additions Support Growth Strategy

‘District Scale Potential’

Large, High-Grade Inferred Resource:

− 43.3mm lbs @ 0.69% U3O8

Near-surface zones

Positive Initial Met Tests

Mining friendly, Pro-U Several Mines &

Development Projects Community Engagement

a Priority of KIV Areva’s Kiggavik Lays

Groundwork for Angilak


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

KIV Volume (RHS)

KIV (LHS)

TSX-V Repriced to KIV (LHS)

The Right Corporate Structure

KIV Price / Volume (2010 – Present)

Angilak 43.3mm lbs U3O8

Baker Basin

Price (C$/Share) Volume (mm)

Capital Structure (As at January 16, 2014)

Ownership Uranium Portfolio Recent Financings

Q2 2013: C$4.5mm15mm Units @ $0.30(1 Share + 1 Warrant @ C$0.50)

Q2 2012: C$11.6mmFT: 16.8mm @ $0.50NFT: 7.1mm @ $0.45

Q2 2012: C$9.5mmFT: 6.9mm @ $0.52NFT: 13.1mm @ $0.45

Close Associates26%

Lumina Capital17%

Resource /Mining Funds

15%

Insiders5%

Retail / Other37%

Genesis

Shares Outstanding (mm) 191.0

Warrants (weighted avg strike price $0.50) (mm) 17.4

Options (weighted avg strike price $0.47)

(mm) 12.7

Fully Diluted Shares (mm) 221.1

Working Capital (C$mm) 2.0

Market Capitalization ($0.22) (C$mm) 38.21

Average Trading Volume (3 months Jan. 17) (‘000s) 171,327

Kiv Current Price (Jan. 17) (C$/share) $0.23


Highly Seasoned Team

Uranium Exploration Leadership

Expertise added to the Board of Directors related to uranium fuel markets and uranium industry M&A Bolstered management team with finance and legal capacity Operational team continuously executes large logistical programs and successful exploration campaigns – on budget


0

20

40

60

80

0

25

50

75

100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

U3O8 Inferred Resource (mm lbs, LHS)

KIV Market Cap (C$mm, LHS)

U3O8 Monthly Spot Price (US$/lb, RHS)

$9mm

$17mm$20mm

$5mm

2010 2011 2012 2013

Highly Seasoned Team – High Impact Exploration (C$mm) / (mm lbs ) (US$/lb)

KIV

Mar

ket C

ap v

s. U

3O8

Spot

&

Infe

rred

Res

ourc

e Ex

plor

atio

n B

udge

t

Inferred Resource: 14.15 mm lbs U3O8 @ 0.79%



KIV Mkt. Cap ~C$90mm

Fukushima


Great Jurisdiction – Canada

Mining friendly, pro-uranium jurisdiction

Multiple projects being advanced or operated by global mining companies

Areva’s Kiggavik and Cameco’s Turqavik/Aberdeen projects in close proximity to KIV assets (NU)

Mining Friendly Jurisdiction

Community Engagement

Landmark agreement with Nunavut Tunngavik to explore for uranium on Inuit land

Community engagement is a priority with ongoing community updates, site visits and employment opportunities

Winners of environmental stewardship awards for two of the past three years

Nunavut and Saskatchewan Mining and Mineral Exploration


Angilak Property


U3O8(2)

mm lbs43.3 28.8 28.7 41.2 70.5 11.2 31.2 21.4 53.2 45.3 8.5 76.5 53.7 34.5 45.1 61.6 212.6

MineType OP/UG UG UG UG ISR ISR ISR UG OP UG ISR OP ISR OP OP OP OP

Location Can Can USA Slov Aus USA USA Colom Aus Mali USA Aus USA Spain Namib Peru Namib

Stage(3) Pre-PEA PEA PEA PFS FEAS PEA FEAS PEA PEA PEA Comm Cons Cons PFS PEA PEA FEAS

0.69%

0.57%

0.41%0.34% 0.33%

0.20%

0.12% 0.11% 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02%

Angi

lak

(Kiv

alliq

)

Mat

oush

(Stra

teco

)

Roc

a H

onda

(En.

Fue

ls)

Kuris

kova

(Eur

o. U

r.)

Four

Mile

(Allia

nce)

Dew

ey B

urd.

(Pow

erte

ch)

Chu

rchr

ock

(Ur.

Res

.)

Berli

n(U

3O8)

Wes

tmor

elan

d(L

aram

ide)

Fale

a(D

enis

on)

Lost

Cre

ek(U

r-En

ergy

)

Wilu

na(1

)(T

oro)

Lanc

e(P

enin

sula

)

Sala

man

ca(B

erke

ley)

Om

ahol

a(D

eep

Yel.)

Kihi

tian

Gro

up(M

acus

ani)

Etan

go(B

anne

rman

)

World Class Asset – Comparable Projects

Angilak is The Highest Grade Compliant Resource Not Controlled by a Major

Comparable Independent Uranium Projects Ranked by Grade (%U3O8)

Underground

Open Pit

ISR

Source: Company technical reports, filings, press releases and investor presentations. Notes: (1) Wiluna PF Lake Maitland transaction (2) Compliant 43-101 or JORC total resource (3) Indicates completed study or current phase of development. “PEA” = Preliminary Economic Assessment; “PFS” = Pre Feasibility; “FEAS” = Feasibility; “Comm” = Commissioning; “Cons” = Construction


Geopolitical Risk (Political, Social & Infrastructure)

Comparable Project Evaluation Framework Illustrative Comparable Project Evaluation Matrix

Res

ourc

e Q

ualit

y (D

epth

, Gra

de &

Res

ourc

e Si

ze)

Hig

her

Low

er

Higher Lower

U3O8 Grade: <0.25%

U3O8 Grade: 0.25-0.5%

U3O8 Grade: >0.5%

Ball Size Represents Total Resource Size

Angilak

Matoush

Roca Honda

Kuriskova

Four Mile

Dewey Burdock

Churchrock

Berlin

Westmoreland

Falea

Kihitian

Lost Creek

Wiluna

Lance

Salamanca

Omahola

Etango


-96 -113 -122-80

-40

0

40

150

175

200

225

250

275

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

SupplyDemand

Conceptual Angilak Timeline – ‘Impeccable Timing’

Surplus Deficit

Glo

bal U

Su

pply

/ D

eman

d(1)

U

Sup

ply

Bal

ance

(1)

Angilak(3) Conceptual

Dev. Timeline

Deficit

Kiggavik(2)

Proposed Dev. Timeline

(mm

lbs

U3O

8)

(mm

lbs

U3O

8)

Supply Deficit

Permitting / Licensing Construction Production

Construction Production PEA / Pre-Feas / Feas / Permitting

Notes: (1) Uranium supply / demand forecast as per Raymond James equity research. (2) As per Areva’s publicly stated development timeline for Kiggavik. (3) Not NI-43-101 compliant, conceptual and for illustrative purposes only. Conceptual outline based on permitting timelines as per Nunavut Impact Review Board process, and subject to obtaining required approvals, permits, and financing and receiving positive PEA, PFS, FS, etc.


Genesis Property, Saskatchewan – A Growing Project Portfolio Saskatchewan: A Prolific

Uranium District Established infrastructure

Politically supported

Produces15% of the world’s annual supply of uranium

Genesis Property

362,789 acres

25 kilometres northeast of the Eagle Point uranium mine and Rabbit Lake mill

36 mineral claims strategically staked along 90 kilometres of prospective geological and structural settings

Covers 28 documented historic uranium showings and several boulder trains


$0.78

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0$6.23

$38

$0

$30

$60

$90

$120

0.69%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

43.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

Comparable Analysis – Junior Explorers and Developers Equity Value (C$mm) Total Resource (mm lbs U3O8)

Total Resource Grade (% U3O8) EV / Total Resource (C$/lb U3O8)

Source: Company technical reports, filings, press releases and investor presentations. As at January 8, 2014


EV / Resource (C$/lb U3O8)

$0.78/lb

Equ

ityV

alue

Ent

erpr

ise

Val

ue

Infe

rred

Res

ourc

e

U3O

8S

pot

C$38mm C$34mm43mm lbs

US$35/lb

Equ

ityV

alue

Ent

erpr

ise

Val

ue

Infe

rred

Res

ourc

e

U3O

8S

pot

C$95mmC$87mm

14mm lbs

US$60/lb

Fukushima Impact Kivalliq Pre-Fukushima

March 2, 2011

Since Fukushima, KIV’s inferred resource is up 206% but its EV/lb valuation is down 87%

Kivalliq Today January 8, 2014

EV / Resource (C$/lb U3O8)

$6.12/lb

-87%

-60% -61% -42% +206%

Source: Company filings. As at January 8, 2014


38

15

10

5

2

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Asia

Central &E. Europe

South Asia& Mid. East

NorthAmericaSouth

AmericaWesternEurope

Africa

121

118

98

68

25

4

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

NorthAmericaWesternEurope

Asia

Central &E. Europe

South Asia& Mid. East

SouthAmerica

Africa

On average, a 1 MW reactor requires in excess of 400k lbs U3O8/year

Uranium Market Outlook – Demand-Side Worldwide Nuclear Landscape Top 10 Nuclear Generating Countries

436 Operating Reactors Worldwide 72 Reactors Under Construction Worldwide

(2012, Bln kWh) 436 operational reactors in 30 countries

72 reactors under construction in 14 countries

372,326 MW total net installed capacity

12% of world’s electricity production from nuclear

13 countries with ¼ or more of electricity from nuclear

0

200

400

600

800

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Institute


Canadamm lbs %

Total 23.5 15.5%

Kazakhstanmm lbs %

Total 56.5 37.2%

Worldwide U3O8 Production and Operating Reactors

Source: Raymond James, International Atomic Energy Agency Notes: (1) % represents portion of 2013E primary supply of 152mm lbs. In addition to numbers displayed above, 6.7mm lbs (4.4%) are produced in other countries

Australiamm lbs %

Total 16.6 10.9%

FSU (ex. Kazakhstan)mm lbs %

Russia 8.1 5.3%Other NIS 9.0 5.9%

Total 17.1 11.3%

USAmm lbs %

Total 4.6 3.0%

2

7

58

16

8

2

4

19

19

6

21

9 6

4 4

2

1

1 5

10

2 15

1

100

2

33

1 3

23

50

2

2013E Primary U3O8 Production(1)

Nuclear Reactors in Operation

Africamm lbs %

Niger 11.6 7.6%Namibia 10.9 7.2%Other 4.4 2.9%

Total 26.9 17.7%


Overview of Uranium Producing Regions Comments / Considerations Geopolitical

Stability U3O8 Prod.

(mm lbs / %)(1) % of Known Resources(2)

Operating Reactors(3)

Australia

• Significant producer with largest known resources • Long history of uranium mining but highly political issue • History of anti-uranium policies: “no new mine policy” • Queensland & WA recently lifted production moratoriums • Production moratoriums still in place in NSW & Victoria • Aboriginal issues a consideration

Good 16.6mm 10.9% 31% 0

U.S.

• Production from 1 conventional mill and several ISL operations • Consumes 50mm lbs / year, produces 5mm lbs / year - HEU

provided ~45% of supply • National security / energy independence concerns may bode

well for related policy • Moratoriums in Virginia, Navajo Reservations, Grand Canyon

Good 4.6mm 3.0% 4% 100

Africa • Production concentrated in Niger and Namibia • Strong political support in Namibia • Recent extremist activity in Niger places uncertainty on supply • Typically large, low-grade deposits

Fair/Poor 26.9mm 17.7% 18% 2

FSU

• Largest producing region with significant known resources • Highly concentrated, largely controlled by Russian State and

subject to supply management • Kazakhstan responsible for substantially all worldwide growth in

primary supply over last 5 years

Fair/Poor 73.6mm 48.5% 25% 68

Canada

• Significant producer with long history of uranium mining • Home to world’s largest mine and highest grade deposits • Consistent and transparent permitting regimes • Moratoriums in Quebec, BC and Nova Scotia • First Nations issues a consideration

Good 23.5mm 15.5% 9% 19

Notes: (1) 2013E U3O8 production as per Raymond James, WNA. (2) 2011 reasonably assured resources plus inferred resources from OECD as per NEA & IAEA. (3) As per IAEA


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

New MinesExisting MinesSecondary SupplyDemand

Uranium Market Outlook – Supply-Side Themes (m

m lb

s U

3O8)

Glo

bal U

rani

um

Supp

ly /

Dem

and 2020: 16mm lbs Deficit

2025E: 52mm lbs Deficit

Rec

ent S

uppl

y-Si

de T

hem

es Supply-side impact of post-Fukushima uranium price weakness has really begun to rear its head

− Until recently, planned development projects have been main victims - Trekkopje, Imouraren, ODX, etc. − However, late November saw significant reduction of production guidance form existing mines – Kazatomprom,

ARMZ/Uranium One, Energy Fuels, etc. − Continued supply management and growth curtailment will be a prevailing theme in current price environment

Anemic mining equity capital markets also contributing to supply-side uncertainty − Delayed projects being pushed back further − Juniors' ability to progress exploration and development projects severely impaired

Forecasted supply deficit starting in 2017 and growing rapidly − Deficit widens to 16mm lbs by 2020 and 52mm lbs by 2025 − Further mine closures and recent events could see forecasted supply deficits being brought forward to 2015 or 2014

− Incident at Rio Tinto’s Ranger Mine could lead to prolonged or indefinite closure − Potential for Kayelekera and Rössing to fall victim to current price environment

Japanese inventory reduction and timing on reactor restarts remains the main near-term issue Source: Raymond James, Kivalliq


Disclaimer

This presentation does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities of Kivalliq Energy Corporation. The information in this presentation related to the mineral resource estimate has been approved by Robert Sim, P.Geo, of SIM Geological Inc. who is an independent Qualified Person as defined under National Instrument 43‐101. Jeff Ward, P.Geo, President of Kivalliq and a Qualified Person for the Company has reviewed and approved the information contained in this presentation and related news releases. FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS This presentation contains "forward-looking statements". These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this presentation and Kivalliq Energy Corporation does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the timing and amount of estimated future exploration, success of exploration activities, expenditures, permitting, and requirements for additional capital and access to data. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, risks related to actual results of current exploration activities; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; the ability to enter into joint ventures or to acquire or dispose of property interests; future prices of mineral resources; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; ability to obtain financing; and delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing.


Contact

Kivalliq Energy Corporation #1020 - 800 W Pender Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 2V6

www.kivalliqenergy.com

Reesa Meltzer, Senior Administrator ++604-646-8361 or [email protected]

http://www.kivalliqenergy.com/

mailto:[email protected]

Kivalliq Energy Corporate Presentation - January 17, 2014

Investor Relations