May 2019

Developing Canada’s Next

Nickel District

Forward Looking Statements

2

This presentation contains certain “forward looking statements” within the meaning of “forward looking information” under

applicable Canadian securities laws, concerning the business, operations and financial performance and condition of FPX Nickel

Corp. (“FPX Nickel”, “the Company”). Forward looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the

future price of nickel and certain other commodities, the estimation of mineral reserves and resources, the realization of mineral

resource estimates, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production, capital expenditures, success of

exploration activities, permitting time lines, requirements for additional capital, government regulation of mining operations, and

environmental risks. Forward looking statements are statements that are not historical fact. Forward looking statements can be

identified by the use of forward looking terminology such as “plans”, “expects”, “is expected”, “budget”, “target”, “targeted”,

“scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “believes” or variations of such words and phrases or statements

that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. Forward looking

statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management that, while considered reasonable,

are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Readers are cautioned

that such forward looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual

results, level of activity, performance or achievements of FPX Nickel to be materially different from the Company’s estimated

future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by those forward looking statements, and the forward looking

statements are not guarantees of future performance. These risks, uncertainties and other factors include, but are not limited to:

significant depreciation of metals prices; changes in equity ownership; accidents and other risks associated with mining,

exploration, development and production operations; unanticipated geological factors; possible variations in mineral resources

and reserves, grade or recovery rates; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing on acceptable terms, or in the

completion of development activities and other risks of the mining industry. Although FPX Nickel has attempted to identify

important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward looking statements, there

may be other factors that cause actual results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurances that

such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in

such statements. FPX Nickel does not undertake to update or revise any forward looking statements that are included in this

document, except as required by applicable securities laws.

Technical InformationAll technical information in the corporate presentation was prepared under the supervision of FPX Nickel’s Chairman, Dr. Peter

Bradshaw, P. Eng., a qualified person consistent with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral

Projects (“NI 43-101”).

FPX’s Decar Nickel District is one of the world’s best

development-stage nickel projects

3

● Low Projected Costs

➢ Potential for lowest quartile

operating costs (US$3.13/lb)

➢ Low capital intensity compared to

recent global nickel mines

● Modest Enviro Footprint

➢ Non acid-generating host rock

➢ No toxic heavy-metal leaching

➢ Benign tailings with significant

potential for CO2 capture

● Large Resource, Long Life

➢ Projected to be among world’s 10

largest nickel mines by annual output

➢ 24-year mine life with significant

expansion potential

● Excellent Location

➢ Located 80 km west of Mt. Milligan

mine (first production 2013) in BC

➢ Supportive local relationships

➢ Close proximity to power and rail

The Case for Nickel

Data Source: Scotiabank January 2019 Commodity Price Outlook4

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

$20.00

(150)

(100)

(50)

-

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

US

$ /

lb

00

0s T

on

ne

s

Global Refined Nickel Supply/Demand and Price

Implied Surplus/Deficit '000 tonnes (LS) Nominal LME Cash Prices US$/lb (RS)

Forecast

April 2016 to April 2019 – FPX vs. nickel performance

5

FPX – Leverage to the Nickel Price

BCOMNITR = Bloomberg Nickel Sub-index Total Return, a single commodity sub-index

composed of futures contracts on nickel

FPX has extremely low market value compared to other exploration- and

development-stage nickel companies, suggesting greater potential upside

6

FPX – Deep Value Nickel Opportunity

* Nickel equivalent based on published resources and/or reserves

Source: Haywood Securities (August 2018), PCF Capital Group (June 2018)

$0.003 $0.008 $0.009 $0.009

$0.029

$0.044

$0.095

$0.141

FPX Nickel Corp.(TSXV: FPX)

Cassini ResourcesLtd. (ASX: CZI)

Rox ResourcesLimited (ASX: RXL)

Pure Nickel Inc.(TSXV: NIC)

RNC Minerals(TSX: RNX)

Poseidon NickelLimited

(ASX: POS)

Duketon MiningLtd. (ASX: DKM)

Sama ResourcesInc.

(TSXV: SME)

Relative Market Valuation

Enterprise Value per lb Nickel equivalent (USD)

7

Decar Nickel District – Ownership History

November 2009

Execution of option agreement with

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.

2010 to 2013

Cliffs expenditures of US $22 million

toward completion of PEA in 2013,

establishing 60% project ownership

August 2014

Cliffs announces intention to divest

all non-core assets, including 60% Decar interest

November 2015

FPX Nickel re-establishes 100% project ownership via payment of US $4.75 million to

Cliffs

Decar Nickel DistrictExcellent Location – British Columbia

● Road

accessible

● 5 km to rail

line

● 100 km to

provincial

power grid

8

9

Decar Nickel District (245 km2)

1. DTR = Davis Tube

Recoverable Nickel

2. “Nickel in alloy” selective

assay method

3. Per 2013 PEA (see page 15

of this presentation)

B Target• 1 hole drilled, 1.7 km from Sid

• 263m of 0.132% DTR Ni 1

• Open along strike and at depth

Sid Target• 2 holes drilled, 320m apart

• 282m of 0.143% Ni in alloy 2

• 163m of 0.126% Ni in alloy 2

• Open along strike and at depth

Van Target• Drill-ready target

• Surface samples up to

0.16% DTR Ni 1

• Exploration target ~3 km2

Baptiste Deposit (2013 PEA)• 30,000 metres drilled

• LOM average head grade 0.118% DTR Ni1,3

• Southeast Zone expanded in 2017 drilling

(see page 9 of this presentation)

10

Decar Nickel District Exploration Upside

Baptiste Deposit

Van Target

Sid Target

B Target

● Southeast Zone: Higher grade near-surface zone measuring 1,000 metres east-west by up to 600 metres wide

● Deposit remains open to southeast, northwest & northeast and at depth 11

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit

12

Baptiste Deposit – 2017 Stepout Drilling

Southeast Zone (shaded area on map)

● Measures 1,000 metres east-west by up to 600 metres wide

● High-grade, near-surface potential for starter pit

● Table above shows average grade for holes clustered in Southeast Zone

Comments

2010-1 3 321 318 0.145

2010-7 3 71 68 0.13

2011-5 45 303 258 0.145

2011-7 51 304 253 0.163

2012-36 31.1 600.1 563 0.156 Excludes 5.7 m dike

2012-37 64 600 494.9 0.147 Excludes 8.2 m and 33m dike

sequence

2012-39 38.2 594.1 552.7 0.153 Excludes 3.1 m dike

2012-40 33 588 549.9 0.153 Excludes 5.1 m dike

2012-43 33.2 600 508.1 0.151 Excludes 22m, 9m, 14.2 m, 3.2m

& 9.9 m dikes and minor wall

rock

2012-46 28.6 600.1 487.4 0.15 Excludes 20m, 8m, 14m, 12m &

11m dikes and < 0.1% DTR Ni

intervals

2012-50 34.5 229 194.5 0.147

2012-55 106 569.7 456.2 0.158 Excludes 7.4 m dike

2017-63 73 390 317 0.121 Excludes 4 m, 5 m, 25 m, 2 m,

1m, 1m and 1m dikes

2017-65 29 351 322 0.131 Excludes 1 m, 8 m, 1m and 2 m

dikes

2017-67 55 349 294 0.151 Excludes 9 m and 1m dikes

2017-68 26 172 146 0.128 Excludes 1.2 m dike

Hole

Intersections DTR Nickel

(%)From To Length

13

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit2018 Mineral Resource Estimate

* Davis Tube Recoverable Nickel”; 0.06%

cut-off

2018 estimate dated February 26, 2018 by

GeoSim Services Inc. Mineral resources

reported in relation to a conceptual pit

shell, at a cut-off grade of 0.06% DTR Ni

inside a resource shell based on a nickel

price of US$6.00/lb.

2018 resource estimate report will be filed

under the Company’s SEDAR profile

within 45 days of February 26, 2018. 2013

resource estimate report filed on SEDAR

on March 21, 2013.

Mineral resources which are not mineral

reserves do not have demonstrated

economic viability. Inferred mineral

resources have a high degree of

uncertainty as to their existence, and a

great uncertainty 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.

Comparing 2018 vs. 2013 Mineral Resource Estimate (see notes above)

- More refined model than previous iteration with new robust geological model

- Increased level of confidence (59% increase in indicated tonnage)

- Similar total tonnage and grade using significantly lower Ni price assumption

(US$6.00/lb in 2018 model vs. US$9.39/lb in 2013 model)

(% Ni) (Tonnes Ni) (Pounds Ni)

Indicated 1,842,645,000 0.123 2,271,000 5,007,133,000

Inferred 390,788,000 0.115 448,000 988,111,000

Category Tonnes

Davis Tube Recoverable (“DTR”)

Nickel Content *

TonnesDTR Ni

Grade (%)Tonnes

DTR Ni

Grade (%)

0.02 1,906,630,000 0.121 504,880,000 0.097

0.04 1,889,612,000 0.121 434,287,000 0.108

0.06 1,842,645,000 0.123 390,788,000 0.115

0.08 1,746,351,000 0.126 334,757,000 0.122

0.10 1,526,532,000 0.131 272,280,000 0.130

Cut-off Grade

(DTR Ni %)

Indicated Inferred

14

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit2018 Mineral Resource Estimate

- 2018 mineral resource model incorporates the results of stepout drilling

completed in 2017 in the Southeast Zone

- Potential to improve Baptiste mine plan by incorporating near-surface tonnage

in a starter pit to the southeast of the 2013 PEA pit

15

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste DepositLong Section View (image location below)

- 2018 mineral resource model incorporates the results of

stepout drilling completed in 2017 in the Southeast Zone

- Potential to improve Baptiste mine plan by incorporating

near-surface tonnage in a starter pit to the southeast of the

2013 PEA pit

• Van Target is

drill ready and

measures ~3

km2 based on

54 bedrock

surface

samples

• ~35% of

surface

samples in Van

Target area

grading over

0.12% DTR Ni

• Van Target

located 6 km

north of

Baptiste and

remains open

to the east

• Baptiste Target

was ~2 km2

prior to initial

drilling in 2010

16

Decar Nickel District – Van Target

17

Decar Nickel District – Mineralization

Formula Nickel % Iron % Sulphur %

Ni3Fe 75 25 0

Awaruite – Naturally-Occurring Nickel-Iron Alloy

● Targets are large-scale and near-surface

● Disseminated nickel mineralization

● Consistent grade and grain size distribution

● Highly magnetic

● Very dense (8.2 gm/cc)

● No sulphur in mineral or host rock

18

Decar Nickel District – Conventional Metallurgy

Simple, two-stage process

➢ Rougher magnetic separation

➢ Conventional flotation

High recoveries, high grade products

➢ 80-90% recovery of DTR Ni grade

➢ Ni concentrate grading 55-72% Ni and 25%

➢ By-product iron ore concentrate grading 58-64% Fe

Clean process, clean products

➢ Non acid-generating host rock

➢ Products have high metal content, low impurities

Parameter 2013 PEA 2019 Testing

Ni Concentrate Grade 13.5% Ni 55-72% Ni

DTR Ni Recovery 82% 80-90%

Iron Ore Concentrate Grade N/A 58-64% Fe

● Nickel – iron – chromium concentrate

● Can bypass nickel sulphide smelters for

direct sale to manufacturers of ferronickel

and stainless steel alloys

● Standalone smelting tests indicate

potential to produce ferronickel

19

Decar Concentrate Premium Nickel Product

Ferronickel buttons

produced from 2013

Decar concentrate

- 49% Ni

- 51% Fe

20

Decar Ni Concentrate – Marketing Advances

Metallurgical Testing Post-PEA

➢ 2013 smelting tests confirmed amenability to conventional ferronickel processing

▪ Stand-alone: FeNi @ ~50% Ni

▪ Blending feed to Rotary Kiln – Electric Furnace (“RKEF”): FeNi @ 17-19% Ni

Concentrate Market Testing 2014

➢ Demonstrated technical acceptability of Decar concentrate in existing facilities of six potential offtakers:

▪ RKEF circuits, either as feed to Rotary Kiln or blended with post-kiln feed direct to Electric Furnace

▪ Direct feed to stainless steel bath, after pelletization – needs additional longer-run testing

➢ Indicative terms for nickel payability ranging from 85% to 95% of LME Ni price

● 2013 PEA concentrate specs

➢ Ni grade: 13.5%

➢ Fe grade: 45% - 50%

➢ Cr grade: ~ 2.0%

● PEA payability assumptions:

➢ 75% of LME Ni Price

▪ LME discount accounts for off-

site charges

▪ No credits for Fe or Cr

● Payability upside a key target

➢ No analogues for product

21

Decar Nickel Concentrate – Premium ProductFPX concentrate to yield high payability given similarity to NPI & Ferronickel

Source: Canaccord Genuity, Metal Bulletin, FPX market test

“NPI gets similar or better payability compared to many other nickel products. The superior payability is achieved

through its suitability for stainless steel production. This is due to the product’s high iron content and efficiencies

in the stainless steel production process as an ideal feed without the need for further treatment.” (Canaccord)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Nickel sulphate (~22% Ni)

NPI (~12% Ni, ~85% Fe)

including Chinese VAT

Class 1 (>99% Ni, LME Grade)

Ferronickel (~30% Ni, ~70% Fe)

Decar Concentrate (~13% Ni, ~50% Fe, ~2% Cr)

Mixed Hydroxide Intermediate (~40% Ni, ~2% Co)

Sulphide Concentrate (~15% Ni)

Global Nickel Products -- Ni Content & Payability (% LME Nickel Price)

Nickel Content Nickel Payability (% LME Ni Price, 100% Ni content)

Highlights of Economic Results

Project (100%):

• Pre-Tax NPV (8%) C$ 1,125 million

• Pre-Tax IRR 15.7%

• Post-Tax NPV (8%) C$ 579 million

• Post-Tax IRR 12.8%

• Cash Operating Cost C$ 3.23/lb Ni

Baptiste Deposit – PEA Results

● Positive result : First pass proof of concept

➢ Indicates potential economic viability

● Significant potential for economic upside remains

➢ Targets identified by consultants, in-house review

March 2013 PEA: Economic Results *

22

* Note: The results of the PEA are preliminary in nature, based in part

on inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative

geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that

would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. Mineral

resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have

demonstrated economic viability, and there is no certainty that the

results of the PEA will be realized.

23

Baptiste Deposit – PEA Parameters

1. Assumes 8% mining dilution, with

zero grade material

2. Concentrate includes by-product

iron (45% - 50%) and chromium

(~2.0%)

3. 75% x 3-year trailing average Ni

price of US$ 9.39/lb Ni; no credits for

by-products

4. Federal: 15%; Provincial (BC): 11%;

BC Mineral Tax: 13% (applied to “net

revenue”)

✓ Indicates key target for

optimization in PEA

revision

Note: The results of the PEA are

preliminary in nature, based in part on

inferred mineral resources that are

considered too speculative

geologically to have economic

considerations applied to them that

would enable them to be categorized

as mineral reserves. Mineral

resources, which are not mineral

reserves, do not have demonstrated

economic viability, and there is no

certainty that the results of the PEA

will be realized.

Operating Costs

Mining C$ 2.86/t

Milling C$ 3.25/t

G&A C$ 0.80/t

Total C$ 6.91/t

or C$ 3.23/lb

Baptiste Deposit – Cost Metrics

● Low on-site operating costs

➢ Accuracy of estimates: + 27.5%

➢ Potential position in lower half of

cost curve based on

▪ Low strip ratio, simple processing

▪ Project site, infrastructure attributes

● Detailed capital cost

estimate

➢ Accuracy of estimates: + 23%

➢ 20% contingency included

➢ Sustaining includes ongoing

construction of tailings dam

March 2013 PEA: Key Cost Metrics

24

Capital Costs

Initial

Direct C$ 970 million

Indirect and Owner’s C$ 197 million

Contingency (20%) C$ 217 million

Total C$ 1,384 million

LOM

Sustaining C$ 763 million

25

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit Low initial capital intensity compared to other recent large nickel mines

$36,000

$53,000 $56,000

$60,000

$73,000

$79,000

$83,000

$92,000

Decar (Canada)

2013 PEA Estimate

US$1.3 billion

Barro Alto

(Brazil - 2011)

US$1.9 billion

Ramu

(Papua New Guinea

- 2012)

US$1.8 billion

Onca Puma

(Brazil - 2011l)

US$3.2 billion

Goro

(New Caledonia -

2010)

US$6 billion

Ravensthorpe

(Australia - 2011)

US$3 billion

Koniambo

(New Caledonia -

2013)

US$5.5 billion

Ambatovy

(Madagascar -

2013)

US$5.5 billion

US$ capital cost per tonne annual Ni production

Source: company filings

26

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit Low capital and operating cost compared to other nickel mines

Yabulu (Queensland -Australia)

Tocantins (Votorantim -Brazil)

Ramu (MCC - Papua New Guinea)

VNC (Vale - New Caledonia)

Ambatovy (Sherritt -Madagascar)

Weighted Avg. (ex-Decar)

Murrin Murrin (Glencore -Australia)

Rio Tuba (Nickel Asia -Philippines)

Moa Nickel (Sherritt - Cuba)

Baptiste Project (FPX -Canada)

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000

US$

/to

nn

e O

per

atin

g C

ost

US$/tonne Annual Nickel Capacity Capital Cost

Selected Ni Project Costs, Adjusted to $2017 Basis

Source: Wood Mackenzie, BMO, Decar 2013 PEA for capital cost and on-site operating cost assuming C$1 = US$0.97

27

Baptiste Deposit – PEA RevisionFPX Nickel will undertake Baptiste PEA revision targeting

the following upside parameters:

Parameter Description

Higher Grade Mill Feed Potential for ~20-25% higher grade resources in early

years of mining based on 2017 drilling

Optimized Recoveries Potential for higher Ni recoveries vs. 82% of DTR Ni

recoveries in 2013 PEA

Higher-Grade Ni Product ~65% nickel product vs. 13.5% nickel in 2013 PEA

Enhanced Ni Payability 85-95% LME payable based on market testing vs.

75% LME payable in 2013 PEA

Iron Ore By-Product Potential to incorporate by-product sales of high-grade

iron ore product

Lower Exchange Rate Current exchange rate C$1 = US$0.76 vs. US$0.97 in

2013 PEA

No Marketing Fee Elimination of 1% marketing fee (calculated on NSR

basis) held by former project partner Cliffs

28

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste DepositConceptual Site Layout (based on 2013 PEA)

● Pit Outlines for

Mining Phases 1

and 4

➢ 2017 drilling in South East Extension area to increase Phase 1 ore tonnage

● Tailings

impoundment

➢ Design includes water

reclaim and recycle

➢ Potential for CO2

capture and tailings

cementation

29

Near-Surface Consistent Grade

• Consistent grade with low variability

• Higher-grade near-surface zone for starter pit

Large Resource with Expansion Potential

• Baptiste Deposit can be among world’s top-10 mines by annual Ni output

• 24-year mine life with significant expansion potential at Baptiste and surrounding targets (Van, Sid & B Targets)

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste DepositTicking all the boxes

Conventional Open Pit Mining

• Bulk mining operation

• Truck and shovel

• Low strip ratio 0.17:1

Conventional Metallurgy

• Physical processing using off-the-shelf equipment

• Magnetic separation followed by flotation recovery

• Concentrate or pellet product grading 55-72% Ni, 25% Fe

• Potential production of by-product iron ore concentrate

30

Low Capital Intensity

• Low capital intensity compared to recent Ni projects

• ~US$36K/t annual Ni output (2013 PEA)

Low Operating Costs

• Potential for lowest quartile operating costs

• On-site operating costs of US$3.13/lb Ni (2013 PEA)

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste DepositTicking all the boxes

Premium Fe-Ni Product

• Potential to bypass smelters for direct sale to ferronickel and stainless steel producers

• 2014 market test yielded positive technical & commercial feedback from offtakers

Modest Enviro Footprint

• Non-acid generating host rock and tailings

• No toxic heave-metal leaching

• Benign tailings with significant potential for C02 capture

31

Excellent Jurisdiction

• British Columbia rated 2nd most attractive mining jurisdiction in world by Mining Journal (2017)

• Decar located 80 km west of Mt. Milligan open-pit Cu-Au mine (first production 2013)

Proximity to Infrastructure

• Decar is road accessible by main-line forestry roads

• 5 km to rail line and 100 km to provincial power gride

Decar Nickel District – Baptiste DepositTicking all the boxes

Excellent Local Relationships

• Signed MOU and strong relationship with Tl’azt’en First Nation

• Local community involvement and support for the project

Opportunity for Innovation

• Ongoing university research to assess potential of Decartailings for sequestration of CO2

• According to a paper published by Dr. Ian Power (BSC & PhD, Professor, Trent University), “the Baptiste deposit offers a tremendous opportunity for developing a carbon-neutral mine”

32

Skagway

● 50 km SE of Whitehorse

➢ 16 km from Alaska Hwy

➢ 200 km from Skagway, AK

Mich Property (Yukon)

● 2014: Two-hole, 873 m

drill program completed

➢ Both holes carry long

intervals of 0.087% DTR Ni

● Proposed Drill Holes

➢ 2-stage drill programs

➢ Track >0.08% Ni surface

samples to the southeast

and northwest

Recent Price: C$ 0.13/share➢ 52-week Range: C$ 0.075 – C$ 0.18

➢ Market Capitalization: ~ C$ 19 million

➢ Average daily volume: ~ 40,000 shares

Shares Outstanding➢ Basic: 146.0 million

➢ Fully Diluted: 160.1 million

➢ No warrants

Ownership – Issued & Outstanding➢ Management: 17.7% (21.6% fully diluted)

➢ Other large (> 2%) shareholders: 33.4%

Financial position➢ ~ C$1,100,000 cash on-hand

➢ ~ C$1,000,000 working capital

➢ ~ C$65,000 marketable securities (not included in working capital)

FPX (TSX-V): 3-Year Price Chart

(C$/share)

33

Share Structure & Financial Position

Management

● Martin Turenne – President, CEO & Director

➢ Executive with over 17 years’ experience in the commodities industry, including over 7 years in the

mining industry

➢ Formerly CFO of FPX Nickel from 2012 to 2015

➢ Formerly with KPMG LLP and Methanex Corporation

➢ Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA, CA)

● Chris Mitchell – CFO & Corporate Secretary

➢ Metallurgist and business consultant with 40-plus years experience in the minerals industry, including

senior executive positions with Viceroy Resources and Orvana Minerals; former CFO for Canterra

Minerals, Silver Quest Resources and Independence Gold

➢ Professional Engineer and Life Member, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of

B.C.

➢ Director, Endurance Gold, former director of Orvana Minerals and Matrix Metals (AIM)

● Trevor Rabb – Consulting Geologist

➢ Professional Geologist with over 10 years’ experience in mineral exploration, including over 5 years

specializing in nickel-iron alloy deposits

➢ Formerly FPX Nickel’s Senior Geologist and Vice-President Exploration from 2010 to 2016

➢ Key player in exploration discoveries for FPX Nickel’s Decar, Mich, Wale and Klow properties

34

Board of Directors● Peter Bradshaw – Chairman

➢ Exploration geologist with 45 years experience with Barringer Research, Placer Dome and Orvana Minerals

➢ Key Discoveries/projects: Porgera, Kidston, Misima, Omai, Decar

➢ Member, Canadian Mining Hall of Fame

● Peter Marshall

➢ Mining engineer with 30 years experience in mine development and construction,

➢ Formerly VP Project Development, New Gold and SVP Project Development, Terrane Metals

➢ Extensive mine development experience in central British Columbia, including completion of Blackwater feasibility study (New Gold) and

development and early construction of Mt. Milligan copper-gold mine (Terrane Metals, acquired by Thompson Creek for $650 million in 2010)

● Rob Pease

➢ Geologist with over 30 years experience in exploration, mine development and construction

➢ Former CEO Terrane Metals (Mt. Milligan copper-gold mine, central B.C.), acquired by Thompson Creek for $650 million

➢ Former Director, Richfield Ventures Corp (Blackwater gold project, central B.C.), acquired by New Gold for $500 million

● Jim Gilbert

➢ MBA with 30 years experience in international mergers and acquisition and finance

➢ 20-plus years in the global mining sector, including senior positions with Rothschild, Gerald Metals and Minera S.A.

➢ Former Director, AQM Copper Inc., acquired by Teck Resources in 2016

● William Myckatyn

➢ Mining engineer with over 34 years experience in the international mining industry

➢ Former Co-Chairman and CEO of Quadra – FNX (acquired by KGHM for $3 billion)

➢ Director, San Marco Resources, Oceana Gold

● John McDonald

➢ Geologist with 40-plus years experience in international exploration

➢ Co-Founder and founding Director – Mineral Deposit Research Unit, University of British Columbia

➢ Director, Canterra Minerals, Hudson Resources, Independence Gold

● Martin Turenne

➢ President & CEO, FPX Nickel Corp. (see bio on page 34)

35

FPX Nickel Corp.

Suite 725 – 1155 West Pender Street

Vancouver, BC Canada

V6E 2P4

Phone: +1 604-681-8600

www.fpxnickel.com

info@fpxnickel.com

Twitter: @FPX_Nickel

36