John McCluskey - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Jamie Porter - Chief Financial Officer Peter Macphail - Chief Operating Officer Chris Bostwick - Vice President of Technical Services Aoife McGrath - Vice President of Exploration.

Cosmos Chiu - CIBC World Markets Anita Soni - Credit Suisse Don MacLean - Paradigm Capital Inc. Phil Russo - Raymond James Ltd. Michael Gray - Macquarie Securities Mark Mihaljevic - RBC Capital Markets.

Please stand by. Your meeting is about to begin. Good afternoon. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Mr. Jamie Porter, Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead, Mr. Porter..

Thank you, operator and thanks to everyone for attending Alamos’ Fourth Quarter 2015 Conference Call. In addition to myself we have on the line today John McCluskey, President and Chief Executive Officer; Peter Macphail, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

To address any questions with respect to our reserve and resource update and our exploration programs we also have on the line today. Chris Bostwick, Vice President of Technical Services and Aoife McGrath, Vice President of Exploration. I would like to remind everyone that our presentation will be followed by a Q&A session.

On this call we’ll be making forward-looking statements. Please refer to the disclaimer on forward-looking statements in our news release and MD&A as well as the risk factors set out in our annual information form. All forward looking statements on this call are qualified by these cautionary statements.

There can be no assurance that our forward looking statements even though considered reasonable by management based on information on hand will prove to be accurate. Future results and events could differ materially.

Technical information in this presentation has been reviewed and approved by Chris Bostwick, our VP Technical Services, and a qualified person. Also please bear in mind that all of the dollar amounts mentioned in this conference call are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Now, John will provide you with an overview..

Thank you, Jamie; and good afternoon, everyone. The fourth quarter capped off what was a transformational year for Alamos. We built a much bigger and stronger company through a merger with AuRico and we strengthened our development pipeline through our acquisition of Carlisle Goldfields.

We are also adding value to exploration with the highly successful first phase drill program at Cerro Pelon and La Yaqui. Operationally, we had a strong quarter with cost down substantially from the third quarter and production increasing to a record 104,700 ounces of gold.

For the full-year we produced 380,000 ounces at all-in sustaining costs of $1,091 per ounce both meeting 2015 guidance. As we look to build up this momentum in 2016. Our core focus remains are continuing the ramp up of underground mining at Young-Davidson and developing the Cerro Pelon and La Yaqui deposits at Mulatos.

We expected to produce in the range 370,000 to 400,000 ounces with stronger production in the second half of 2016 reflecting the ongoing ramp up at Young-Davidson and higher grades stacked at Mulatos.

All-in sustaining costs are expected to decrease to $975 per ounce, down the 11% or more than $100 per ounce driven by improvements at both Young-Davidson and Mulatos. A trend we expect to continue as we execute on respected expansions.

Capital spending is expected to decrease by more than 20% across the Board in 2016 as we narrow our near-term focus on growing low cost production from our core operations. As we execute on these expansions and generate more free cash flow, we look to deploy this back into our development pipeline with a focus on our highest return projects first.

This includes, the Lynn Lake project in Manitoba, which we consolidated ownership of review this year. Lynn Lake has quickly become one of our most active projects given its many positive attributes, including strong economics, favorable location, and Canadian dollar exposure. We continue to push ahead with the permitting process in Turkey.

However, consistent with our near-term strategy, we don’t expect to spend any major capital on these projects until the expansions at Young-Davidson and [developments] are complete.

We had a good year on the exploration front in 2015 with reserves replaced the Young-Davidson for the fifth consecutive year, and total reserves and resources at Cerro Pelon and La Yaqui more than doubling from a highly successful initial exploration program.

Total reserves and resources at Cerro Pelon and La Yaqui increased by a 145% or 321,000 ounces to now total 542,000 ounces, this included a 17% increase in total reserves to 260,000 ounces and a 230,000 ounce initial inferred resource at La Yaqui.

These increases came from a short first phase exploration program which has surpassed our initial expectations with a large zone of alteration at La Yaqui and several more exploration programs to come, we are encouraged by the potential to add to this resource space, which will be the driver of our first future reserve growth.

This is higher grade open pit, heap leach ore that will provide substantial lower cost productions at Mulatos. So I cannot stress enough the positive impact that these deposits will have on overall operation. At Young-Davidson, we more than replaced completion with an increase in underground reserves, maintaining its 15-year reserve life.

This reserve replacement was accomplished through infill and stope definition drilling, and virtually no exploration drilling. Exploration drilling has not been a focus in the near-term with a large long life reserve already in place. That said, the mine remains excellent exploration potential with deposit open primarily of that.

This will once again be a focus as the lower mine is developed. With a strong record of resource conversion and significant exploration potential, we expect this mine will be producing well beyond 20 years from now.

With growing North American production and declining costs, one of the best portfolios of growth projects and strong balance sheet to support this group, Alamos remains among the best position companies to deliver long-term sustainable shareholder value.

With that, I will ask our CFO, Jamie Porter to comment on our fourth quarter 2015 financial performance.

Jamie?.

Thank you, John. As I mentioned in our third quarter conference call, our financial statements for 2015 reflect a number of complex accounting issues, impairments charges, and other non-cash adjustments that we do not expect to recur going forward.

You will recall that as a result of the merger we’ve heard AuRico’s financial statements and have made a number of adjustments including material impairment charges that made up the majority of our loss for the year. We look forward to reporting more meaningful financial results starting with the first quarter of 2016.

Focusing on our financial performance in the fourth quarter, we reported revenues of $116 million based on the sale of 104,400 ounces of gold at a realized price of $1,109 per ounce beating the average London PM Fix price by $3 for the quarter.

Higher gold production in sales help drive costs lower in the fourth quarter with total cash cost of $780 per ounce, and all-in sustaining cost of $1,073 per ounce. For the full-year, total cash costs of $766 per ounces, and all-in sustaining costs of $1,091 per ounce were inline with guidance.

We expect substantial cost improvement in 2016 with all-in sustaining costs decreasing by more than $100 to $975 per ounce. We report a loss of $60.5 million in the fourth quarter or $0.24 per share with a majority of this loss related to non-cash adjustments.

At El Chanate, we had a third-party leach pad specialist review our pad inventory in the fourth quarter. The result of this review was a reduction in the estimated number for recoverable ounces in leach pad inventory at El Chanate to 100,000 ounces, and a corresponding write-off of $25.4 million or $17.8 million after tax.

In addition, we wrote-off historical carrying value associated with an exploration joint venture in Mexico $17.6 million, incurred foreign exchange losses of $5.1 million and other non-cash losses of $5 million. These adjustments totaled $0.18 per share.

Operating cash flow before changes in non-cash working capital was $17 million or $0.07 per share in the fourth quarter. We expect increased operating cash flow and positive free cash flow from each of our mines in 2016 at current gold prices. Capital spending in the fourth quarter totaled $41 million and $190 million for the full-year.

We expect a 20% reduction in the rate of capital spending in 2016 across all operations to between $138 million and $158 million. Amortization expense was $37.5 million in the fourth quarter or $299 per ounce.

This decreased on a per ounce basis relative to prior periods, reflecting the impairment charges taken both Young-Davidson and El Chanate in 2015. Our corporate G&A expense in the fourth quarter totaled $6 million. Prior to the merger, the combined 2015 Alamos, AuRico corporate G&A budget was $25 million.

We have $16 million budget for corporate G&A in 2016 reflecting $9 million in annual corporate synergies that we have realized from the merger. We’ve also realized tax and operational synergies of $11 million bring the total annual savings to $20 million double what we anticipated when we announced the merger.

Given El Chanate higher cost structure, we took advantage of the increase in gold prices to lock in gold price and help ensure the operations generates positive free cash flow in 2016.

As of March 22, the Company sold 17,000 ounces with a further 51,000 ounces of Chanate’s 2016 production hedge through collars which will settle throughout the remainder of 2016. The collars ensure a minimum realized gold price of $1,140 per ounce and a maximum gold price of $1,274 per ounce.

We continue to possess one of the strongest balance sheets of our peer group with $290 million of cash and available for sales securities at the end of December.

We designed our 2016 budget so that each of our operations with free cash flow neutral at $1,100 gold price, while we are expecting our debt service exploration and corporate G&A costs to be refinanced from our balance sheet.

With the increase in gold prices to above $1,200 per ounce, we now expect to generate meaningful free cash flow from each of our operations and forecast and in 2016 was a similar cash balance to what we have currently.

We expect further strong free cash flow growth over the next two years driven by the ongoing ramp up of Young-Davidson and new production from our higher grade Cerro Pelon and La Yaqui deposits. At this point, I would like to turn the call over to Alamos’ COO, Peter Macphail, to provide an overview of operations..

Thank you, Jamie, and good afternoon everyone. Young-Davidson continues to hit new milestones with underground mining rates increasing to an average of new record of 5,900 tonnes per day in the fourth quarter and over 6,000 tonnes per day in December meeting in the year end target.

The operation also achieved a new low in terms of unit mining costs of $27 per tonne reflecting ongoing productivity improvements to weaker Canadian dollar and the benefit of a nine-month hydro rebate of $2 per tonne in the quarter.

We also met our budgeted meters for underground development and remain on track as we transition to 100% owner development by the end of the second quarter. We expect this to drive significant savings over the next several years. Mill throughput averaged 7,630 tonnes per day in the fourth quarter at an average process grade of 2.17 grams per tonne.

Throughput was slightly lower than the comparable period in 2014 due to the scheduled maintenance in the Mill in October. Process grades were 10% higher as underground ore supplied a higher portion of the mill feed.

Underground grades mined were 2.58 grams per tonne in the quarter and 2.67 grams per tonne for the full-year consistent with the mine plan and reserve grade with a slight positive reconciliation to the block model. Young-Davidson produced a record 44,700 ounces in the fourth quarter and 160,400 ounces for the full-year in line with the guidance.

All in sustaining cost $980 per ounce in the quarter, $986 per ounce for the full-year were both below the mid-point of guidance as productivity improvements in the weaker Canadian dollar continue to positively impact the operation.

Both total cash costs and all in sustaining costs are expected to continue to decrease as underground mining rates increase. We remained on track to achieve the underground mining rates of 7,000 tonnes per day by the end of 2016.

We expect this to drive production to higher to a range of 170,000 to 180,000 ounces with all-in sustaining costs decreasing more than a $160 per ounce to $825 per ounce. We expect further improvements in costs as we ramp up underground mining rates to 8,000 tonnes per day by mid-2017.

Growing production declining costs and declining rate of capital spending will translate to significant free cash flow generation in the years ahead.

Mulatos produced 41,830 ounces for the quarter a 52% improvement over the previous quarter reflecting higher tonnes and grade stacked, the recovery of deferred ounces from the seasonally weak third quarter, and improved mill production.

The leach pad continues to perform very well if the operation continue to experience positive grade reconciliation from the Mulatos pit. Grade stacked 0.94 grams per tonne in the fourth quarter and 0.87 grams per tonne for the full-year were above the budgeted 0.8 grams per tonne.

Mill throughput improved in the fourth quarter reflecting higher grades processed of 19.4 grams per tonne and higher throughput of 450 gram tonnes per day. To date, we have realized positive grade and negative tonnage ounce reconciliations at San Carlos.

The block model and mine plan have been updated to reflect this into 2015 reserve, resulting in a decrease in tonnes at San Carlos, partially offset by a 75% increase in the reserve grade to a 11.7 grams per tonne.

This is expected to result at higher grades processed to the mill over a shorter remaining underground mine life of approximately one-year based on current reserves. We are continuing to evaluate the potential for conversion of existing resources to extend the mine life.

For the quarter, all-in sustaining cost at Mulatos was $958 per ounce, down $252 per ounce from $1,210 in the previous quarter. On a year-to-date basis all-in sustaining costs were $1,047 per ounce.

Mulatos is expected to have a stronger year in 2016 with production increasing to a range of 140,000 to 150,000 ounces and all-in sustaining costs decreasing more than $100 per ounce to $925 per ounce. We expect this trend to continue as the higher grade and lower cost Cerro Pelon and La Yaqui deposits come online.

The EIA submission for La Yaqui remains on track for the end of March with initial production expected in mid-2017. El Chanate had another strong quarter with production of 18,210 ounces bringing the 2015 year-to-date production to a record 79,312 ounces exceeding guidance.

The operation continued to benefit from higher grade stacked in previous quarters and improved recoveries from the leach pad, partially offset by lower mining rates. El Chanate is a higher cost operation but extremely, efficiently run as demonstrated by its ability to generate positive free cash flow in 2015, despite the weaker gold price.

As Jamie mentioned with the hedges in place for 2016 we look forward to another year of positive free cash flow from the operation. With that, I will turn the call back to John..

Thank you, Peter. And that concludes our formal presentation. I’ll now turn the call back to [Danna], our operator who will open the call for your questions..

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And the first question is from Cosmos Chiu from CIBC. Please go ahead..

Thank you, John, Jamie, Peter and team. Congrats on a very successful 2015. Maybe first off a question on Young-Davidson here, you mentioned free cash flow earlier in the presentation how I look at free cash flow as I take operating cash flow subtract out CapEx for sustaining CapEx for development.

And if I do that for Young-Davidson in Q4 I get negative $6 million in free cash flow. I guess my question is two parts maybe for Jamie is this how you look at free cash flow? And you know certainly we are going to see Young-Davidson as you mentioned all-in sustaining costs come down in 2016.

When would you expect at the asset level for Young-Davidson to be free cash flow positive.

Is it going to be in 2016 or is it going to be closer to 2017?.

Cosmos this is Jamie here. It will be in 2016 in fact it will be next quarter.

As I mentioned we designed our budgets at $1,100 gold such that YD would breakeven by the end of the year, so we were free cash flow negative for the first half, but we’re recouping that in the second half, now at $1,220 gold will be free cash flow positive in the second quarter..

That would be great..

And the way we look at it is exactly as you suggest. I mean it’s the proceeds from the gold that we sell from Young-Davidson offset by every dollar that we spend there. So that obviously would include their operating costs and their sustaining and their growth capital, it's an all-in number..

Great. Maybe another question for Jamie, we’ve talked about the write-off of the ounces on a leach pad. I can't [seem to] find on the net or on the income statements.

Is it part of the NRV adjustment and if that's the case is it sort of embedded in the operating cost and in Q4 is that how we should look at it?.

Yes. So it’s actually a split between mining and processing costs and depreciation. So it’s a $25 million write-down, $20 million of that flows through mining and processing costs and then the other $5 million through amortization expenses..

Okay.

And then maybe on El Chanate as well, certainly you are not spending too much money in terms of CapEx at El Chanate in 2016, you’d always been profitable in terms of free cash flow, but how should we look at the mine life here at El Chanate, should we pretty much take the 100,000 ounces on a leach pad plus recoverable reserves that you’ve stated.

I’m just wondering if there's any kind of upside speaking for that?.

Yes, I think $1,250 gold price, Chanate continues mining for about three years, after which we serve residual leaching the pads and then would recover the remaining 100,000 ounces..

Yes. Over the course of another after three years..

Okay. And then maybe one last question from me. Switching gears to Mulatos. It's great that, it’s good to see now you've added quite a number of ounces in terms of inferred ounces at La Yaqui.

Could you remind us again in terms of the historically speaking the conversion rate from Inferred into M&I ultimately into reserves at Mulatos or more specifically at La Yaqui and some of the satellite deposits. .

Well, all that probably just on the investment going back to the early days of Mulatos, it was drilled off by Placer Dome and by 43-101 definitions, it was probably half measured and indicated resource and the other half was inferred resource.

Well, as time went on and with the immediate area of the Mulatos pit, we converted everything that was stated as inferred resource and more..

Okay..

So from an open-pit basis, we've had very, very good success in the area of the Mulatos pit. This is at La Yaqui, a new exploration discovery, and by the time we cut off the drilling data to calculate this year’s reserves and resources. We’re only able incorporated a very limited number of drill holes from that first exploration program.

We were quite surprised that with that limited amount of drilling, we were able to pull in as many resources as we did in any category. It’s our expectation with the type of mineralization that we see there that we're going to have a fairly high conversion rate..

Okay. Great. That’s all I have. Thank you..

Thank you..

Thank you. The next question is from Anita Soni from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead..

Good afternoon guys. First question is with regard to Young-Davidson and the stockpile level. So I’m just trying to reconcile what was mined and what was milled? Could you – it seems like the stockpile level went down to a greater degree than I would have anticipated given what you had mined from the underground mine.

Could you just talk about that?.

It’s Peter here. We still have over 1.5 million tonnes, 1.4 million tonnes at 0.8-ish grams per tonne in that stockpile. Comparing to prior years it should be just the simple math of how many tonnes we milled minus how many tonnes came from the underground. I don’t have those numbers detail right in front of me.

Chris, you have those numbers?.

Yes, so our depletion last year from stockpiles about 900,000 tonnes at 0.7 and from the underground was 1.8 million tonnes to 2.66….

So that adds up to the new tonnes of throughput..

Okay..

I would add there just recovery that there is more than enough material in surface stockpile to probably outlast the current underground reserve, so….

Once the underground mine makes 6,000 tonnes a day we won’t be taking any more from that surface stockpile and it will be there for still the end of – if we have either just in production or ability to produce more its kind of [indiscernible] until the end of mine..

Thank you. The next question is from Don MacLean from Paradigm Capital. Please go ahead..

Well, good morning guys. We’re looking forward to 2016 and just on the Mulatos I guess Peter there is going to be a bit of a balancing going on here between the end of San Carlos and the start up of La Yaqui.

Any sense of how much time goes between the two of the end of one and start of the other next year?.

It will depend on our ability to convert some resources in the Central Zone at San Carlos and we are in there now, we are mining in there now. So our ability to find what will be dependent on are drifting through it. We expect production from La Yaqui by early in the second half of 2017.

So is there a quarter or so that we drift and then come back up, that’s quite possible, but the grand scheme of things looking at La Yaqui and Cerro Pelon in the way they are developing. This is not a big issue..

Yes, for sure. Okay. Well, then maybe just touching on the number of holes John, you had mentioned the you are surprised that how many ounces came in with the limited amount of drilling.

Could you give us a sense of how many holes were actually in that resource calculation and how many holes have been drilled to this point now since the resource was calculated?.

Well, we’ve got our VP of Exploration, Aoife McGrath here, she is the lady who oversaw that program and responsible to drill those well. I’ll let her take the question..

Hi Don..

Hello, Aoife..

Up until the end of last year there were like 60 exploration holes drilled on La Yaqui. There was a number it was about 5,000 or 6,000 meters in addition to that which were infill and metallurgical, geotechnical, condemnation, but those six drills were all the way along that kilometer along ways new zone by 300 meters wide.

So they are pretty widely placed still. There were more holes drilled on the Southeast portion of that range were the material came into first and that’s what we are building now is to we are building around that and enjoying that and we fully understand the control of the mineralization that we can infill that fairly quickly this year..

Okay, so I guess two things, one is how many holes if you’ve been able to put in since the resource was calculated.

Have you been able to put in quite a bit and I guess the ultimately what I am trying to get a sense on this, how long will it be before you have a sense of basically your third dimension down the hill?.

We are currently drilling up there [indiscernible] got four rigs drilling at the moment so we’re going steady on that, that’s a very large zone it was La Yaqui the large zone. So we are going to take it very systematically. We continue exploring rest of the rigs, but we don’t still program and concurrent to that to infill the zones to the southeast.

In terms of timing I think they study program throughout the year..

Okay, so we might – would we maybe able to get an exploration update mid-year or third quarter?.

Don, its Jamie here. Yes, I think it will be results dependent and we’ll evaluate it as we go based on the results of the infill drilling..

Okay. Fair enough then. And then just lastly on the Mulatos itself the heap leach, the resource, the reserve came down, but it wasn’t a focus.

Can we maybe get some color as to whether or not it will be easy to replace depletion and going forward if it does become a focus again at Mulatos heap leach area or is it really the future of the projects going to be very driven by the new satellite zones that are being found?.

Yes, [EFA] has budgets for drilling around Mulatos this year so we’ll do some more of that and we would expect some conversion, but the focus really is on Yaqui and Pelon at this point..

Yes, understandable with the economics. Okay, thanks guys..

Thank you. The next question is from Phil Russo from Raymond James. Please go ahead..

Yes, thanks. Good afternoon John and the team there.

Peter just on Mulatos here, can you maybe just expand that what happened here in this negative tonnage and ounce reconciliation you saw the reduction and expectations?.

It’s a high grade and it really depended on how we mined it, so we are able to mined at both – quite that were selectively than initially anticipated in the early days offsetting the reserve before we got underground.

So we are mining at more selectively at a higher grade, we are getting spectacular grades, but less tonnes and that’s just the way it’s turnout, it’s about just over 40,000 ounce reduction in ounces. So it’s not that significant particularly we’re finding elsewhere [indiscernible]..

Okay.

And then La Yaqui, the good result there, is there a chance that La Yaqui could be a biggest contributor to here in ounces or as you look at La Yaqui evolving here or is it more about just adding to its loss, so can it be a bigger contributor? And I guess where I am going with that is does Mulatos can it still get over 200,000 ounces collectively through all these different sources or with San Carlos sort of lowering here, does the mine struggle to get over 200,000 ounces in the next couple of years kind of do it with what you have irrespective of what happens with San Carlos?.

Hi Phil. It’s John McCluskey here. Right now both La Yaqui and Cerro Pelon are at a relatively early stage in terms of their evolution. Indications are they are going to get there and we could see that the middle of last year. The results came in far beyond our expectations and right now we are feeling very enthusiastic about what we are seeing there.

The area of alteration associated with both of those zones is quite substantial and we used an analogy with India, the [technical legal] property and in terms of the Cerro mineralization and so forth. They are very much in the same family.

The area of alteration that was associated with this La Yaqui is quite a bit bigger and from that perspective we just look on in terms of scale and we know the India is around 800,000 ounces or so. And so we see that type of potential at this point at La Yaqui.

So given that we’re starting it off small with what we are permitting and what we designed until now. Initially the impact is going to be smaller between La Yaqui zone for example, we envisioned about 50,000 ounces of production when they were both going in total.

That will evolve as those ore bodies grow and we’ve already been able to get a very good indication based on three preliminary results from 2015 that these ore bodies are growing. And I think commensurate with our expectations is that production profile is also going to grow.

So this 50,000 ounce a year number could easily change to 100,000 ounces a year between those deposits and possibly beyond that. So, given that its early days I want to get too far in front of the story, but we have pretty high expectations, grades are excellent, the network shows that recoveries are excellent.

Mining cost we expect are going to be very, very low. From this point of view, we see La Yaqui and Pelon as the future of Mulatos. We still got a long way to go in the Mulatos pit and there is still lot’s of potential around there.

But in terms of where we see the biggest upside in terms of grade, the overall economics and so forth, the area of the operation, in fact that it’s – it still want to explore. It really is pointing to Pelon and La Yaqui now. So from that point of view do I believe we have the potential to get that project backup 200,000 ounce a year range.

I absolutely did..

Great. Thanks a lot John, Peter..

Thank you. The next question will come from Anita Soni from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead..

Hi, guys. I apologize the operator drop me, so I did not hear the response to the question on stockpile and also have one more follow-up with regards to Mulatos. So all that you just - if you want to torture everyone again just give me – on the stockpile.

I did the calculation, your year end level was 1.74, and then you basically – the variance would be about 160,000 that you put – would have put to the mill based on what you mined and that would gauge about 1.6 in the stockpile level and you post about 1.4?.

Yes. So Anita, it’s Chris Bostwick. The actual depletion from the stockpile or the pressure from the stockpile last year was 900,000 tonnes and 0.7 grams per tonne. And from the underground we produced 1.5 million tonnes to 2.66..

And then just on Mulatos. If I look at the 3 million tonnes of conversion that you had that lowered the strip ratio there and congratulations on that.

I'm just wondering what was the genesis of that was it lower costs I am assuming?.

Yes, it’s Chris again. Yes it was lower cost principally lower milling and admin cost that enabled us to stretch the lower offering. Yes, heap leach cost driven by essentially lower sideline cost..

Great.

Would that material have a lower associated recovery rate or would it be the same?.

Generally it will have the same average recovery..

And then one last question with regards to San Carlos.

The mill that you guys have there, would it be possible to use it for crushing facility? Would it be possible to use that at La Yaqui or Cerro Pelon?.

Hi, Anita, it’s Peter here. Yes, the milling associated crushing facility with that mill is very small, 500 tonnes per day capacity and to crush very fine. So, no we wouldn't be – probably wouldn't be able to use any of that at Pelon and La Yaqui..

All right. Thank you very much..

Thank you. The next question is from Michael Gray from Macquarie. Please go ahead..

Yes, good afternoon everyone. Back to the La Yaqui.

Just a few questions, first is drill hole about a kilometer north of the current reserve hole-68, is that included in the inferred resources?.

Hole-58. It’s Aoife here..

Yes, 68..

She is pulling up our computer Michael..

Okay. Well that’s being pulled up.

Maybe also interested and what's the spacing for the inferred criteria for hole spacing?.

The criteria for inferred is less than 76 meters..

Okay. And everything was bit constrained nothing considered underground. .

All constrained..

Okay. And then when you go by with the $5 million exploration program systematically. Is that a grid pattern more or less or is that really subject to control the mineralization and what would the spacing be if it is systematic..

[Indiscernible] measured or indicated is that 36 meters. So we’re aiming for somewhere between 25 and 30. It’s not as easy to drill on greater [indiscernible] isn’t very simple. But what we would do is we would [indiscernible] and drill from that.

So there are locations at the top where we have current infrastructure, we can put diamond rigs in our C rigs and as we move down the hill and while we’re getting infrastructure in place using [indiscernible]..

Okay, understood..

Yes..

At the start we are going to have 68.20 bucks.

Okay..

We can only take that offline Michael and get back….

Yes..

Sure. Yes, let’s call it there. Thanks very much guys..

Yes..

Thank you. The next question is from Mark Mihaljevic from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead..

Okay thanks and good afternoon guys, so most of my questions have already been answered, but a couple of quick one for you. So first of all can you just update us on the permitting at La Yaqui, so I guess you are submitting everything very shortly you said in Q1.

And then you are expecting about six-month permitting time line and then about couple quarters of development, does that correct?.

Yes, you are exactly right Mark and that’s a timeline that we are working to..

And does that – can you just give us a sense of how the ongoing evolution of the exploration there impacts that?.

Yes, what we are permitting is the initial reserve kit that’s been kind of on the books for a while and so that’s what this – is about, once you have a permit in place it’s easy to work from an existing permit and make modifications and to do it the other way around.

And we can wait another year for you to figure out what we’ve got there and start all over, but this is the more prudent and the faster approach..

Thank you.

That makes sense and can you just give us any update on Esperanza what you guys are doing there, how is the progress with the update at EIA going?.

We actually have - so Esperanza we’ve slowed down the process of pushing that forward, it’s kind of gone down the rank in terms of priority. We continue to look a way at it, but its now even if – you are familiar with the current governor that’s in place there and we are pretty much wait for another term I think..

Okay.

And just one more cleanup for me, how is the MCM which I have to believe you guys are saying that should be basically commissioned give or take right now, how is that going in – have you start to see any of the benefits you discussed on the same visit 12 months ago?.

Yes, so it happens last week, we are now able to send people up and down the MCM shaft in case so that’s kind of the game changer for us so that’s accrued, we can now skip from getting ready to skip from the bottom of the MCM shaft at least for locally produced waste as we develop out from the bottom, we still have the waste has to develop from that part of the shaft up into the up or things that will take over the course of the next year kind of what gets us the ability to get to it down, but 8,000 tonnes per day mid-2017..

Okay, perfect. Thanks and have a great long weekend..

Thank you..

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And your next question is from [indiscernible] from Macquarie. Please go ahead..

Hi guys. I have a question for Peter on Young-Davidson can I get a bit more color on the underground development savings.

And also what percentage of the crew has transitioned to owner operated?.

Yes, sure David. So we save around $2000 per meter between our owner, crews and contractor.

So that’s the number to use and in terms of – sorry the second question was how much that we currently doing was that your question?.

No. The second question was what percentage of the crew has already transitioned over to on our operating..

So we have just about everybody we need in place to take it on ourselves and not everybody was transitioned ROE, we pick some people and not others and some others want to go on and mine somewhere else, but the labor pool and [indiscernible] is good and we have no challenges getting people to work for us..

So in terms of the $2,000 per meter savings are you finding sort of the development rates are better than when you are with contractor I mean what are kind of the main facets of why you're getting such a good improvement?.

Now, the drop in rates are similar, there's a significant profit margins associated with the development contractors and other thing as you've got kind of double the overhead and supervision required. I guess the other point to make that $2000 I quoted was in Canadian dollars such as keep that in mind, we think Young-Davidson is – Canadian dollars….

Great. Thanks guys have a nice long weekend..

Thank you..

Thank you. The next question is from Don MacLean from Paradigm Capital. Please go ahead..

John I was just reading how you weighed your words on Turkey versus Lynn Lake but maybe we could just ask you a bit more color on what you think about - what's happening with the two projects and because that is probably the most common question I ever get as an analyst from investors on what the Company is doing in Turkey.

And then maybe Jamie you could throw in a bit of color because actions often speak louder than words about the relative budgets about how much you're spending in Turkey versus how much you're spending in Lynn Lake this year?.

Yes, Don. In terms of the work going on in Turkey its really focused towards securing the outstanding permits that we have for our - the first two projects we want to bring in production crossly. And there's interesting developments going on in the bigger post-election they had the big federal election last fall.

And this region of the country which is in the past been heavily weighted towards the opposition. And at this point the province of Canakkale is evenly split between two MPs going to the opposition party and two MPs from AK Party. The Governor of course is and appointed additional. He was appointed by the AK Party governments.

And so from that perspective from a political point of view I don’t think there's ever been better moment. Let say for something like a gold project to get permitted in this region and with that a Turkish company that has been working in this district along with us and others for the last few years.

They recently did receive their forestry and GSM permits and they will be able to move forward construction of their project.

That’s the first gold mining project to be fully permitted in [Lavaca] and many of you will remember there were certain voices out there very loud and influential voices saying that no projects would ever get permitted in the beta.

Well that was clearly wrong and that the first of these is now underway and we anticipate that this year we will also get our products respected forestry and construction. We fully expect that’s going to happen and we are undertaking that work now..

Don its Jamie. Different terms of respected budget we try to lay it out in our guidance release in early January that the focus for the next 12 months is really on the ramp up of YD and development of Cerro Pelon and La Yaqui.

So we have cut back on our spending in our development pipeline were budgets – have spend about 4 million in Turkey this year through the permitting process and about 8 million at Lynn Lake advancing towards the feasibility study..

Okay and in terms of they are less priority clearly both Lynn Lake and Turkey is one more top of the pile than the other at this point?.

Well they both have very strong IRR stock they’re all most equivalent, they’re in the range of about 30% or so. And so from that point of view they are extremely attractive projects.

Capital costs on the Turkish project is somewhat lower than Lynn Lake and in fact we intend to undertake work as it’s here is just that the initial work that we do is relatively low cost, we can remove quite a number of critical path items even this year assuming we get the permits in the next six months or so.

There’s still scope to undertake certain work with respect to roads and reservoir construction and so on that are rather important pieces of – it’s possible in terms of getting the project into production, but they just don’t require the capital spend.

We don’t envision any really significant capital spending in Turkey probably the last part of 2017, at which point both Mulatos and Young-Davidson will be generating quite substantial amounts of free cash flow.

And that’s always been contextually the way we envision it since the merger we taking in terms of developing what we have that’s already permitted, that’s already in production, production is up and our cost down and with the free cash flow generation focused that on growing the pipeline..

Having I guess I was just over in Europe and I think there - and in North America there is growing concern about the stability of Turkey John. So I guess that’s late 2017 far enough way you will have a better sense of how things are unfolding in that part of the world..

Well that’s true and I would also say here that I don’t have any concerns about the stability of Turkey that’s a very, very stable company I visited it 25 times in the last five years and you know I spend quite a substantial amount of time there and I had an opportunity to talk to politicians of every political strike from the local communities right up to Cabinet Ministers in the federal government.

I have a very good prospective I would say on what’s going on that in that country and frankly when you get down to it you start sourcing information that its coming from experts on the region. They will tell you that the issue isn't so much economic stability, political stability, and anything else.

It’s more to do with civil rights and I have some concerns on lot of those volumes.

But from the time I arrived in Turkey I could see from a - that the civil rights that Turkish people enjoy are quite as liberal as the ones that I’ve enjoyed as a Canadian and frankly what I think have is Canadian is a rare thing throughout the world, but I would say that I wouldn’t have any hesitation about making an investment in Turkey.

I think a lot are - they do have the role of law there our investment would be well respected and our ability we’ve looked on - in some depth or ability to repatriate earnings and so forth. And we are quite confident but that is – that’s all for real that does not change.

But having said that you are quite right we are not planning on any significant spending in Turkey until the later part of 2017 and the world could be a completely different place sort of that regions concerned by that time..

Great. Okay thank you John..

You’re welcome. End of Q&A.

Thank you. This will conclude the question-and-answer session. If you have any further questions that have not been answered, please feel free to contact Mr. Scott Parsons. Ladies and gentlemen, this will conclude today’s conference call. Please disconnect your lines at this time. And thank you for your participation..