CIBC Whistler Institutional Investor Conference

2017 Whistler Institutional
Investor Conference
January 26, 2017

Forward Looking Information
Both these slides and the accompanying oral presentations contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 and forward-looking information within the meaning of the Securities Act (Ontario). Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and
other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Teck to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed
or implied by the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include statements relating to the long-life of our assets and estimated resource life, estimated
profit and estimated EBITDA and the sensitivity of estimated profit and estimated EBITDA to foreign exchange and commodity prices, production guidance and cost guidance,
sensitivities of profit and EBITDA to foreign exchange and commodity price movements, our expectation regarding market supply and demand in the commodities we produce,
expectation that we will achieve further unit cost reductions in 2016, 2016 production and cost guidance, coal EBITDA and cash flow potential, 2016 capital expenditure guidance,
future options for growth projects, the effect of US dollar oil price changes on our Canadian dollar cost savings, coal 5-year planning objectives, potential increases in port capacity,
our expectation that we will end 2016 with at approximately C$1 billion in cash, our statements regarding the Fort Hills capital expenditures and our ability to fund those, our level of
liquidity, statements regarding our credit rating, the availability of or credit facilities and other sources of liquidity, statements regarding our coal growth potential, the conceptual
future production profile for coal, the potential benefits of LNG use in haul trucks, all projections for NuevaUnión, including statements made on the “NuevaUnión Summary” slide,
Red Dog resource potential, the projected acquisition of the remaining interest on the Teena/Reward project, statements regarding the production and economic expectations for
the Fort Hills project, including but not limited to operating and sustaining cost projections, sustaining capital projection, free cash flow projections, netback assumptions and
calculations, operating margin, Alberta oil royalty, net margin, Teck’s share of go-forward capex, mine life, capital cost projections, all statements made on the “Fort Hills Key
Numbers” and “Fort Hills Project Economics Are Robust” slides, transportation capacity and our ability to secure transport for our Fort Hills production, and management’s
expectations with respect to production, demand and outlook regarding coal, copper, zinc and energy.
These forward-looking statements involve numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties and actual results may vary materially, which are described in Teck’s public filings
available on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and EDGAR (www.sec.gov). In addition, the forward-looking statements in these slides and accompanying oral presentation are also based
on assumptions, including, but not limited to, regarding general business and economic conditions, the supply and demand for, deliveries of, and the level and volatility of prices of,
zinc, copper and coal and other primary metals and minerals as well as oil, and related products, the timing of the receipt of regulatory and governmental approvals for our
development projects and other operations, our costs of production and production and productivity levels, as well as those of our competitors, power prices, continuing availability
of water and power resources for our operations, market competition, the accuracy of our reserve estimates (including with respect to size, grade and recoverability) and the
geological, operational and price assumptions on which these are based, conditions in financial markets, the future financial performance of the company, our ability to attract and
retain skilled staff, our ability to procure equipment and operating supplies, positive results from the studies on our expansion projects, our coal and other product inventories, our
ability to secure adequate transportation for our products, our ability to obtain permits for our operations and expansions, our ongoing relations with our employees and business
partners and joint venturers. Reserve and resource life estimates assume the mine life of longest lived resource in the relevant commodity is achieved, assumes production at
planned rates and in some cases development of as yet undeveloped projects. Management’s expectations of mine life are based on the current planned production rates and
assume that all resources described in this presentation are developed. Certain forward-looking statements are based on assumptions regarding the price for Fort Hills product and
the expenses for the project, as disclosed in the slides. Our estimated profit and EBITDA sensitivity estimates are based on the commodity price and currency exchange
assumptions stated on the relevant slide. Our estimated year-end cash balance assumes current commodity prices and exchange rates, our 2016 guidance for production, costs
and capital expenditures, existing US$ debt levels and no unusual transactions. Cost statements are based on assumptions noted in the relevant slide. Coal EBITDA and cash
flow potential assumptions are noted in the slide titled “Coal EBITDA & Cash Flow Potential”. Our expectation that we will end the year with a cash balance of approximately C$1
billion is based on current prices and exchange rates and assumes no unusual transactions or events occur and that we meet our full year guidance for production, costs and
capital expenditures. Assumptions regarding Fort Hills also include the assumption that project development and funding proceed as planned, as well as assumptions noted on the
relevant slides discussing Fort Hills. Assumptions regarding our potential reserve and resource life assume that all resources are upgraded to reserves and that all reserves and
resources could be mined. The foregoing list of assumptions is not exhaustive. Assumptions regarding NuevaUnión include that the project is built and operated in accordance with
the conceptual preliminary design from a preliminary economic assessment. Acquisition of 49% interest in the Teena/Reward zinc project is based on the assumption that all
conditions to closing are satisfied.
2

Forward Looking Information
Factors that may cause actual results to vary materially include, but are not limited to, changes in commodity and power prices, changes in market demand for our
products, changes in interest and currency exchange rates, acts of foreign governments and the outcome of legal proceedings, inaccurate geological and metallurgical
assumptions (including with respect to the size, grade and recoverability of mineral reserves and resources), unanticipated operational difficulties (including failure of plant,
equipment or processes to operate in accordance with specifications or expectations, cost escalation, unavailability of materials and equipment, government action or
delays in the receipt of government approvals, industrial disturbances or other job action, adverse weather conditions and unanticipated events related to health, safety
and environmental matters), union labour disputes, political risk, social unrest, failure of customers or counterparties to perform their contractual obligations, changes in
our credit ratings, unanticipated increases in costs to construct our development projects, difficulty in obtaining permits, inability to address concerns regarding permits of
environmental impact assessments, and changes or further deterioration in general economic conditions. We will not achieve the maximum mine lives of our projects, or
be able to mine all reserves at our projects, if we do not obtain relevant permits for our operations. Our Fort Hills project is not controlled by us and construction and
production schedules may be adjusted by our partners. NuevaUnión is jointly owned. The effect of the price of oil on operating costs will be affected by the exchange rate
between Canadian and U.S. dollars.
Statements concerning future production costs or volumes are based on numerous assumptions of management regarding operating matters and on assumptions that
demand for products develops as anticipated, that customers and other counterparties perform their contractual obligations, that operating and capital plans will not be
disrupted by issues such as mechanical failure, unavailability of parts and supplies, labour disturbances, interruption in transportation or utilities, adverse weather
conditions, and that there are no material unanticipated variations in the cost of energy or supplies.
We assume no obligation to update forward-looking statements except as required under securities laws. Further information concerning assumptions, risks and
uncertainties associated with these forward-looking statements and our business can be found in our most recent Annual Information Form, as well as subsequent filings
of our management’s discussion and analysis of quarterly results, all filed under our profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov).
3

Agenda
Teck Overview & Strategy
Commodity Market Observations
Teck Update
4

• Americas-centered strategy focused on long-life
assets in stable jurisdictions
− Canada, U.S., Peru and Chile are favorable
regions in which to operate with well-known
mining codes
• High-quality assets: All business units are cash
flow positive
• Sustainability: Key to managing risks and
developing opportunities
Strong Resource Position1
With Sustainable Long-Life Assets
Coal Resources ~100 years
Copper Resources ~30 years
Zinc Resources ~15 years
Energy Resources ~50 years
Attractive Portfolio of Long-Life Assets in
Low Risk Jurisdictions
1. Reserve and resource life estimates refer to the mine life of the longest lived resource in the relevant commodity assuming production at planned rates and in some cases development of as yet
undeveloped projects. See the reserve and resource disclosure in our most recent Annual Information Form, available on SEDAR and EDGAR, for additional detail regarding underlying assumptions.5

Diversified business model
Attractive portfolio of long life assets
Low half of the cost curve
Appropriate scale
Low risk jurisdictions
Consistent Long-Term Strategy
6

Financial Results Overview
2015 Q3 2016
Revenue $8.3 billion $2.3 billion
Assets $34.7 billion
As of December 31
$34.5 billion
As of September 30
Gross profit
before depreciation & amortization*
$2.6 billion $817 million
Profit (loss)
attributable to shareholders
($2.5 billion) $234 million
Adjusted EBITDA*
$2.0 billion $830 million
Adjusted profit
attributable to shareholders*
$188 million
$0.33/share
$152 million
$0.26/share
*Non-GAAP financial measure. See “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of the quarterly news release for further information.7

We have leverage to stronger steelmaking coal and zinc markets,
and we benefit from the weaker Canadian dollar
The Value of Our Diversified Business Model
Cash Operating Profit 20151,2
Production
Guidance3
Unit of
Change
Effect on
Estimated
Profit4
Effect on
Estimated
EBITDA2,4
$C/$US C$0.01 C$22M /$.01∆ C$35M /$.01∆
Coal 26.5 Mt US$1/tonne5 C$20M /$1∆ C$31M /$1∆
Copper 315 kt US$0.01/lb C$5M /$.01∆ C$8M /$.01∆
Zinc 950 kt US$0.01/lb C$9M /$.01∆ C$13M /$.01∆
2016 Leverage to Commodities & FX
1. Reflects gross profit before depreciation and amortization.
2. Non-GAAP financial measure. See “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of the quarterly news release for further information.
3. Assumes the midpoint of updated 2016 guidance ranges. Zinc includes 655 kt of zinc in concentrate and 295 kt of refined zinc.
4. Based on commodity prices as of July 27, 2016 and C$/US$ exchange rate of $1.30. The effect on our profit and EBITDA will vary with movements in commodity prices, exchange rates
and sales volumes.
5. Based on a US$1/tonne change in benchmark premium steelmaking coal price.
Base
Metals
~65%
Copper
~35%
Zinc
~30%
Coal
~35%
Base
Metals
~65%
8

Agenda
Teck Update
9

Steelmaking coal prices seeking balance
Copper mine production peaking
Growing deficit and shrinking inventories in zinc
Oil market to rebalance
Change in Direction in Key Commodity Markets
10

Steelmaking Coal Prices Seeking Balance
Coal Price Assessments
Source: Argus Plotted to January 04, 2017
Q1 2017 benchmark price of US$285/tonne
• Market tightness due to:
− Global curtailments
− Operating day restrictions in China
− Weather & transportation issues
− Production interruptions
− Increased global demand
• Recent supply developments:
− Production interruptions diminished
− Additional supply announced
− China relaxed restrictions on
operating day until March
− Weather & transportation improved
− Traders liquidating positions
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
$/tonne
Quarterly Contract Settlement Argus FOB Australia
11

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025
ThousandTonnes
Mine Production SXEW Scrap Demand
Mine Production Peaks in 2018
Existing and Fully Committed Mines
Metal demand gap continues to outpace new supply
Source: Wood Mackenzie, CRU, ICSG, Teck
>5 Mt of Uncommitted Production
Needed by 2025
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Highly Probable Probable Copper Metal Gap
Copper Mine Production Peaking
12

Concentrate Supply Shrinking
Chinese Zinc Metal Imports
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jan-13 Jul-13 Jan-14 Jul-14 Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16
kt
Mine production Concs imports Annualized Monthly Avg. Supply
Spot and Benchmark TCs Tighten
• Domestic production plus imports ~550 kt/mth in 2013
− Currently ~450 kt/mth
• Concentrate imports averaged ~95 kt/mth 2013 to 2015
− 2016 averaging 69 kt/mth
• Reduction in supply forcing metal production cuts
• Metal imports increased to supplement declining feedstocks
• Continued tightness is evidenced by the falling TCs
Source: NBS/CNIA, Customs
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Spot Annual
Down ~75%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan-13 Jul-13 Jan-14 Jul-14 Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16
kt
450 kt
Up ~22%
550 kt
Chinese Zinc Concentrate Supply Declining
Plotted to November 2016
13

Source: Consensus Economics, December 2016
Fort Hills first production may coincide with forecasted supply deficit
Oil Market to Rebalance
Global Crude Oil Supply and Demand Balances
Millionofbarrelsperday
Millionofbarrelsperday
14

Agenda
Teck Update
15

Well Positioned to Capitalize on Turn in the Cycle
• Reduced debt by >US$1B over 12 months
• Expect year-end cash balance of ~C$1B
• Excellent operating execution
• Increasing steelmaking coal production guidance
• Continuing to deliver on cost management
• Investing for growth
16

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016F*
Before by-product credits
After by-product credits
US$/lb
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016F*
Operating Capitalized Stripping
C$/t
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2012 2013 2014 2015
US$pertonneofproduction
Track Record of Lowering Cash Costs
Copper Cash Costs3
Achieved significant unit cost reductions,
and expect further reductions in 2016
Steelmaking Coal Total Site Costs1
2
1. Total site costs are site costs, inventory write-downs and capitalized stripping, excluding depreciation.
2. Operating costs include site costs and inventory write-downs.
3. By-product credits reduced cash costs by US$0.19/lb in 2015. Assumes US$0.19/lb in 2016.
4. Red Dog zinc/lead site costs are Red Dog site costs per tonne of combined zinc and lead production.
* 2016F based on mid-point of updated guidance range.
Red Dog Zinc/Lead Site Costs4
17

1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
125 150 175 200 225 250 275
C$Million
HCC Coal Price US$/t
Expanding Coal Earnings Potential
Coal EBITDA & Cash Flow Potential*
Cost reductions and price increases contribute to expanding earnings potential
* Non-GAAP financial measures. See ‘Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures’ in our quarterly results news releases for additional information. Annualized EBITDA and free cash flow generating capacity of
the coal business unit in two scenarios. The “mid-point” scenario assumes the mid-points of 2016 production and cost guidance, and realized coal prices equal to 92% of benchmark. The “Upside” scenario
assumes production at the high end of our 2016 guidance range, operating costs at the low end of the range, and realized coal prices equal to 96% of the benchmark. “Cash flow” refers to free cash flow
after capitalized stripping and sustaining capital. Outputs are based on an assumed Canadian dollar to US dollar exchange rate of 1.30, 2016 plan fuel costs, and numerous other assumptions. These
assumptions are subject to various risks and uncertainties that may cause results to vary materially from those depicted above. Please see the Cautionary Note on Forward-Looking Information for more
information.
2016 Guidance Mid-Point Upside
Coal production (Mt) 27.25 27.5
Unit Cost of Sales (C$/t):
Site 44 42
Transportation 34 33
Unit Cost of Sales (C$/t) 78 75
Capitalized Stripping (C$M) 290 290
Sustaining Capital (C$M) 50 50
18

Largest Global Net Zinc Mining Companies
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Thousandtonnes
Source: Wood Mackenzie, 2016E
Teck is the Largest Net Miner
Provides Increased Exposure to Zinc Price
Public Company
Private Company
Teck
19

20
Debt Levels• Repurchased public notes in September
and October
− Face value: US$759M
− Total cost: US$693M
− Total pre-tax gain: C$76M
− Tranches: 2023, 2035, 2040, 2041,
2042, 2043
• Annual interest savings: US$43M
Reduced debt by ~C$1.4B in the past 12 months
Current Debt Profile1
Public notes outstanding US$6.1B
Average coupon 5.7%
Weighted average term to maturity ~13 years
Debt to debt-plus-equity ratio 33%
>US$1B
Reduction
Acting on Debt Reduction
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
9/30/2015 12/31/2015 9/30/2016 10/26/2016
US$Billions
1. As at October 26,2016.20

Emerging Stronger from This Cycle
• Production growth from Fort Hills
• No operating assets sold
• No equity dilution
• Maintaining strong liquidity
• Reducing debt, managing maturities
21
Result is higher production per share

Teck Stock Price vs. London Metal Exchange Index (2000-present)
Commodity Price Correlation With Stock Price
Plotted to January 3, 2017Source: Bloomberg
C$/share
BloombergCommodityPriceIndex
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
50
550
1050
1550
2050
2550
3050
3550
4050
4550
5050
11/04/2001
11/10/2001
11/04/2002
11/10/2002
11/04/2003
11/10/2003
11/04/2004
11/10/2004
11/04/2005
11/10/2005
11/04/2006
11/10/2006
11/04/2007
11/10/2007
11/04/2008
11/10/2008
11/04/2009
11/10/2009
11/04/2010
11/10/2010
11/04/2011
11/10/2011
11/04/2012
11/10/2012
11/04/2013
11/10/2013
11/04/2014
11/10/2014
11/04/2015
11/10/2015
11/04/2016
11/10/2016
11/04/2017
LME Index (Left Axis) Teck (Right Axis)
23

North
America
~23%
Europe
~14%
Latin
America
~2%
China
~22%
Asia excl. China
~40%
Diversified Global Customer Base
Exposure to Recovery in Developed Markets as well as Growing
Emerging Markets
* Based on 2015 revenue.
Revenue Contribution from Diverse Markets*
24

46
35
3
1
15
12
35
28
2014 20152014 2015
Significant Cost Reductions in 2015
Unit Costs Reduced at all of our Operations in 2015, Preserving
Margins in a Volatile Commodity Environment
1. Steelmaking coal unit cost of sales include site costs, inventory adjustments and transport costs. Total cash costs are unit cost of sales plus capitalized stripping.
2. Copper C1 unit costs are net of by-product margins. Total cash costs are C1 unit costs plus capitalized stripping. See Appendix for definition.
3. Non-GAAP financial measure. See ‘Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures’ in our quarterly results news releases for additional information.
23%
Total Cash Unit Costs (US$/tonne)1,3
76
99
Site
Transport
Inventory
Total Cash Unit Costs (US$/lb)2,3
xx%
14%
Copper2
C1 Unit Costs
down US$0.20/lb
Total Cash Unit Costs3
down US$0.27/lb
Total
Capitalized
Stripping
Site
Total
Capitalized
Stripping
1.66
1.93
2014 2015
24%
Unit Cost of Sales (US$/tonne)1
64
84
C1 Unit Costs (US$/lb)2
xx%
12%
1.45
1.65
Steelmaking Coal1
Unit Cost of Sales
down US$20/t
Total Cash Unit Costs3
down US$23/t
1.65 1.45
0.28
0.21
2014 2015
25

- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
Other ($1M)
Productivity - Utilization (e.g Op Delays)…
Components (life/cost) ($7M)
Freight savings ($7M)
Over time reduction ($12M)
Productivity - Enablers, multiple levers ($16M)
Plan optimization ($21M)
Pricing Improvements ($20M)
Equipment Rental Savings ($20M)
Mining Productivity - Availability ($23M)
Admin savings ($55M)
Idling & Energy Savings ($64M)
Consumables ($64M)
Employee Cost Reduction ($134M)
Contractors/Consultants Reduction ($160M)
Mining Productivity - Throughput ($215M)
2013 Initiatives 2014 Initiatives 2015 Initiatives
CAD$ millions
(all USD savings translated using CAD/USD rate of 1.384)
~C$820M of Annualized Savings in 2015, from Major
Cost Reduction Initiatives in 2013-2015
Annualized 2015 Savings from Major Cost
Reduction Program Initiatives (C$M)
Targeting an additional C$300M in operating cost reductions in 2016;
A total of >C$1B of annualized savings identified and included in 2016 plan
Meaningful Savings and Capital
Spending Reductions Achieved
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Guidance
New Mine Development Major Enhancements
Sustaining Capital Capitalized Stripping
C$M
Total Capital Expenditures 2012-2016F
Productivity – Utilizat. (e.g. Op Delays) ($5M)
26

2015 Results
Updated
2016 Guidance
Steelmaking Coal
Production 25.3 Mt 27-27.5 Mt
Site costs $45/t $42-46/t
Capitalized stripping $16/t $11/t1
Transportation costs $36/t $33-35/t
Total cash unit costs2,3 $99/t
US$76/t3
$86-92/t
US$66-71/t3
Copper
Production 358 kt 310-320 kt
C1 unit costs4
US$1.45/lb US$1.40-1.50/lb
Capitalized stripping US$0.21/lb US$0.21/lb1
Total cash unit costs3,5
US$1.66/lb US$1.61-1.71/lb
Zinc
Metal in concentrate production6
658 kt 645-665 kt
Refined production 307 kt 290-300 kt
Updated 2016 Production & Cost Guidance
1. Approximate, based on capitalized stripping guidance and mid-point of production guidance range.
2. Steelmaking coal unit cost of sales include site costs, inventory adjustments and transport costs. Total cash unit costs are unit cost of sales plus capitalized stripping.
Assumes as US to Canadian dollar exchange rate of 1.30.
3. Non-GAAP financial measure. See ‘Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures’ in our quarterly results news releases for additional information.
4. Net of by-product credits.
5. Copper total cash unit costs Include cash C1 unit costs (after by-product margins) and capitalized stripping.
6. Including co-product zinc production from our copper business unit.
27

($M) Sustaining
Major
Enhancement
New Mine
Development Sub-total
Capitalized
Stripping Total
Coal $50 $40 $ - $90 $290 $380
Copper 120 5 80 205 190 395
Zinc 130 10 - 140 60 200
Energy 5 - 1,000 1,005 - 1,005
TOTAL $305 $55 $1,080 $1,440 $540 $1,980
Total capex of ~$1.4B, plus capitalized stripping
2015A $397 $64 $1,120 $1,581 $663 $2,244
2016 Capital Expenditures Guidance
28

Coal
Well established
with capital efficient
growth options
Strong platform combined with diverse portfolio of options
allows us to be selective in terms of commodity and timing
Completed In Construction Pre-Sanction
Copper
Strong platform
with substantial
growth options
Zinc
World-class resource
combined with
integrated assets
Energy
Building a new
business through
partnership
Trail #1 Acid Plant
HVC Mill Optimization
Pend Oreille Restart
Fort Hills
Elk Valley Brownfield
(4 Mpta)
Staged Growth/Value Pipeline
Red Dog Satellite
Deposit – Anarraaq
San Nicolas (Cu-Zn)
(Replacement 4Mpta)
Quintette/Mt. Duke
Frontier
Lease 421
QB Phase 2
NuevaUnión
Mesaba
ZafranalHVC Brownfield
Galore/Schaft Creek
Cirque
Future Options
Trail #2 Acid Plant
Medium-term
Growth Options
Antamina Brownfield
Red Dog Satellite
Deposits
Neptune Terminals to
18Mtpa
29

Operation Expiry Dates
Highland Valley Copper In Negotiation - September 30, 2016
Trail May 31, 2017
Cardinal River June 30, 2017
Quebrada Blanca
October 30, 2017
November 30, 2017
December 31, 2017
Quintette April 30, 2018
Antamina July 31, 2018
Coal Mountain December 31, 2018
Line Creek May 31, 2019
Carmen de Andacollo
September 30, 2019
December 31, 2019
Elkview October 31, 2020
Fording River April 30, 2021
Collective Agreements
30

31
No Substantial Bond Maturities for 5 Years
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
US$M
• No debt due until 2021
− Weighted average maturity ~13 years
− Weighted average interest rate ~5.7%
− Average maturity <US$450M
• Debt to debt-plus-equity ratio 33%1
Repurchased >US$1B in debt in the past 12 months
As at October 26,2016, after giving effect to debt repurchases subsequent to September 2016.
Very little debt maturities while Fort Hills completes construction,
commissioning, and ramps up to full production
• Cost of Non-Investment Grade
− C$1B LOC’s ~$35M
− May bond issue +300bps ~ US$37.5M
− Callable in 2018 and 2019
Debt Maturity Profile

Credit Ratings
S&P Moody’s Fitch
BBB Baa2 BBB
BBB- Baa3 BBB-
BB+ Ba1 BB+
BB
stable
Ba2 BB
BB- Ba3 BB-
B+
B1
stable
B+
negative
Investment
Grade
Non-Investment
Grade
Supported by:
• Diversified business model
• Low risk jurisdictions
• Low cost assets
• Conservative financial policies
• Significant cost reductions
• Capital discipline
• Achieving production guidance
• Production curtailments in coal
• Dividend cut
• Streaming transactions
Constrained by:
• Debt-to-EBITDA*, due to weak prices
Ratings reflect the current economic environment
As at December 2, 2016.
* EBITDA is a Non-GAAP financial measure. See ‘Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures’ in our quarterly results news releases for additional information.
Issuer Credit Ratings
32

Teck Credit Ratings vs. Bloomberg Commodity Price Index
Credit Ratings Reflect Commodity Prices
Plotted to January 3, 2017
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-10
Jan-11
Jan-12
Jan-13
Jan-14
Jan-15
Jan-16
Jan-17
Moody's S&P Fitch LME Index (Right Axis)
BBB/Baa2
BBB-/Baa3
BB+/Ba1
BB/Ba2
BB-/Ba3
BBB+/Baa1
B+/B1
B/B2
B-/B3
A+/A1
A/A2
A-/A3
InvestmentGradeNon-InvestmentGrade
33

Significant Tax Pools in Canada1
~$6B in Available Tax Pools, Including:
• >$4B in loss carryforwards
• $1.77B in Canadian Development Expenses
Applies To:
• Cash income taxes in Canada
Does Not Apply To:
• Resource taxes in Canada
• Cash taxes in foreign jurisdictions
Multiples should reflect tax efficiency of earnings
1. As of December 31, 2015.34

• Six focus areas
• Community
• Biodiversity
• Our People
• Water
• Air
• Energy and Climate Change
• Achieved all 2015 goals
• Set new short-term 2020
goals
• Working towards long-term
2030 goals
Our Sustainability Strategy
35

Our External Recognition
Best 50 Corporate
Citizens in Canada
2016
On the Dow Jones
Sustainability World Index
seven years in a row
One of top 100 most
sustainable companies
in the world and one of
Canada’s most
sustainable companies
in 2016
Top 50 Socially
Responsible
Corporations in
Canada
Listed on FTSE4Good
Index in 2015
36

Steelmaking Coal
Business Unit & Markets

Steelmaking Coal Market Remains Tight
• US exports continue to decline
• Imports into China improved in 2016, but analysts forecast reduced imports
longer term (subject to China’s policy)
• Stronger fundamentals ex-China
Tighter Market ex-ChinaUS Steelmaking Coal Exports (ex. Canada)
Decline in China offset by growth in other markets
Source: GTIS Source: Average of Wood Mackenzie & CRU2016A*: January-October Annualized 2016
-18
-13
-8
-3
2
7
12
17
China JKT Brazil Europe India Global
Seabornemet.coalimportschange,
2020vs.2016,Mt
38 Mt
32Mt
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016A*
Mt
2000-2009
average at 23Mt
2010-2014
average at 55Mt
38

• Total capacity of 1,200 Mt, including 400 Mt of surplus capacity
• 177 Mt committed to closure by provinces and centrally-owned steel companies
within five years
− 68 Mt of closure targets for 2016
− Further reductions may be announced
Reductions in Chinese Steel Capacity
68
44
25
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2016 2017-18 2019-20 Within 3-5 Years
(No Details
Announced)
Mt
Surplus
Capacity
Committed
to Close
177 Mt
Additional
Surplus
Capacity
223 Mt
Production
800 Mt
Timing of Capacity Reduction Targets Announced*China’s Steel Capacity
*As of August 23, 2016.
Source: Company website.
Exceeds government target of 100-150 Mt capacity in the next 5 years
39

45
55
65
75
China
0
3
6
9
12
15
Jan-10
Apr-10
Jul-10
Oct-10
Jan-11
Apr-11
Jul-11
Oct-11
Jan-12
Apr-12
Jul-12
Oct-12
Jan-13
Apr-13
Jul-13
Oct-13
Jan-14
Apr-14
Jul-14
Oct-14
Jan-15
Apr-15
Jul-15
Oct-15
Jan-16
Apr-16
Jul-16
Oct-16
Traditional Steel Markets
• China stable
• JKT slowing
• EU stable
Rest of the World
• India good growth
• Brazil stable
• US slowing
Monthly Hot Metal Production
Source: WSA, based on data reported by countries monthly; NBS
Mt
Global Hot Metal Production
JKT
India
Europe
USA
Brazil
40

Facilitates access to seaborne raw materials
Source: NBS, CISA
Status of Relocation of
Chinese Steel Industry To the Coast
Xinjiang
Tibet
Qinghai
Sichuan
InnerMongolia
Henan
Shanxi
Guangxi
Guangdong
Fujian
Zhejiang
Jiangsu
Shandong
Liaoning
Jilin
Heilongjiang
Guizhou
Hunan
Hubei
Jiangxi
Anhui
Shaanxi
Gansu
Ningxia
Qinghai
Sichuan
Yunnan
Beijing
Hebei
WISCO Fangchenggang Project
• Planned capacity: hot metal 8.5 Mt, crude steel 9.2Mt,
steel products 8.6 Mt
• Cold roll line (2.1 Mt) commissioned Jun. 2015
• No timeline for BFs yet
Baosteel Zhanjiang Project
• Capacity: hot metal 8.2 Mt, crude steel 8.7 Mt, steel
products 8.2 Mt, coke 3.2 Mt
• BF #1 commissioned Sept. 2015
• BF #2 preheating commissioned Aug. 2016
Ningde Steel Base
• Proposed but no progress yet
Ansteel Bayuquan Project
• Phase 1 (~5.4 Mt pig iron, 5.2 Mt crude steel, 5 Mt steel
products) in 2013
• Phase 2 (5.4 Mt BF) planned but no progress yet
Shougang Jingtang Plant
• Phase 1 (~10 Mt) completed in 2010
• Phase 2, planned with the investment of ~US$7B; Aug
2015 start, completion 2018
• Capacity: hot metal 8.9 Mt, crude steel 9.4 Mt
Shandong Steel Rizhao Project
• Capacity: hot metal 8.1 Mt (2 BFs), crude steel 8.5 Mt,
steel products 7.9 Mt
• BF #1 started construction Sept. 2015, completion end
2016
Hegang Coastal Project
• Inland plant relocates to port area
• Capacity: crude steel 20 Mt in two phases
• Phase 1: crude steel 10 Mt; 3 BFs, 6 coke ovens
Guofeng Coastal Project
• Inland plant relocates to port area
• Capacity: crude steel 8 Mt, hot metal 8 Mt in two phases
• Phase 1: crude steel 5 Mt, hot metal 5 Mt, coke 1.7 Mt.
Start by end of 2016; completion 2020
41

0
200
400
600
800
1000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Crude Steel and Hot Metal Production
Source: WSA, China Association of Metalscrap Utilization, Wood Mackenzie
Crude Steel
China Scrap Use to Increase Slowly
China’s Scrap Ratio Low vs. Other Countries
73%
54%
33%
88%
28%
50%
11%
36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
United
States
Europe Japan Turkey Russia Korea China World
Average China
Steel Use
By Sector
(2000-15)
Electric Arc Furnace
Hot Metal
Hot metal / crude steel ratio to remain >90%
and EAF share of crude steel production <10% until ~2028
Source: Wood Mackenzie
Source: China Metallurgy Industry Planning and Research Institute
Construction
55-60%
Others
15-20%
Machinery
15-20%
Auto
5-10%
42

An Integrated Long Life Coal Business
43
Prince Rupert
Ridley Terminal
Vancouver
Prince George Edmonton
Calgary
Westshore Terminal
Quintette
Cardinal River
Elk Valley
Kamloops
British Columbia
Alberta
Seattle
Elkford
Sparwood
Hosmer
Fernie
Fording
River
Greenhills
Line
Creek
Elkview
Coal
Mountain
ElcoElk Valley
1,150 km
• >1 billion tonnes of reserves support 27-28 Mt of production for many years
• Geographically concentrated in the Elk Valley
• Established infrastructure and capacity with mines, railways and terminals
• Only steelmaking coal mines still operating in Canada; competitive globally
Neptune Terminal
43
Coal
Mountain
Phase 2
43

We Are a Leading Steelmaking Coal Supplier
To Steel Producers Worldwide
North America
~5%
Europe
2015: ~20%
2013: ~15%
China
2015: ~20%
2013: ~30%
High quality, consistent, reliable, long-term supply
Asia excl. China
2015: ~50%
2013: ~45% Latin America
~5%
Proactively realigning sales with changing market
44

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Q12010
Q22010
Q32010
Q42010
Q12011
Q22011
Q32011
Q42011
Q12012
Q22012
Q32012
Q42012
Q12013
Q22013
Q32013
Q42013
Q12014
Q22014
Q32014
Q42014
Q12015
Q22015
Q32015
Q42015
Q12016
Q22016
Q32016
US$/tonne
Teck Realized Price (US$) Benchmark Price
Average realized price relative to the
benchmark price is a function of:
1. Product mix: >90% hard coking coal
2. Direction of quarterly benchmark prices
and spot prices
- Significant increase in benchmark
for premium products to US$285/t
in Q1 2017 (Q4 2016: US$200/t;
Q3 2016: US$92.50/t)
Historical Average Realized Prices
Average Realized Price in Steelmaking Coal
Average realized % of benchmark: 91-92% (range: 88%-96%);
Q4 2016 average realized price expected to be US$200-US$205/t
96%
88%
93%
94%
92%
91%
YTD
98%
45

46
35 34
3
1
35
28
26
15
12
8.50
2014 2015 2016
Total cash unit costs down 31% from 2014 to 2016F2,3,4
Total Cash Unit Costs2,3 US$/t 2014 2015 20164 Change
Site $46 $35 $34 -26%
Inventory Adjustments $3 $1 $0 -100%
Transportation $35 $28 $26 -25%
Unit Cost of Sales (IFRS) $84 $64 $60 -29%
Capitalized Stripping $15 $12 $8.505 -44%
Total Cash Unit Costs2,3 $99 $76 $68.50 -31%
Sustaining Capital $6 $2 $1.505 -75%
All In Sustaining Costs2,3 $105 $78 $70 -33%
1. In US dollars per tonne. Assumes a Canadian dollar to US dollar exchange rate of 1.10 in 2014, 1.28 in 2015 and 1.30 in 2016.
2. Steelmaking coal unit cost of sales include site costs, inventory adjustments and transport costs. Total cash costs are unit cost of sales plus capitalized stripping. All in sustaining costs are
total cash costs plus sustaining capital.
3. Non-GAAP financial measure. See “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of our quarterly press releases for further information.
4. Based on the mid-point of updated guidance ranges.
5. Approximate, based on capital expenditures guidance and mid-point of updated production guidance ranges.
IFRS
Steelmaking Coal Unit Costs1
$99
$76
IFRS IFRS
$68.50
Site
Inventory
Transport
Capitalized
Stripping
46

Maintaining Stripping Levels in Coal
Total Material Moved & Coal Production
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Q1/11
Q2/11
Q3/11
Q4/11
Q1/12
Q2/12
Q3/12
Q4/12
Q1/13
Q2/13
Q3/13
Q4/13
Q1/14
Q2/14
Q3/14
Q4/14
Q1/15
Q2/15
Q3/15
Q4/15
Q1/16
Q2/16
Total Material Moved Clean Coal Production
Production(000
t)
MaterialMoved(000BCMs)
• Maintaining material moved
relative to production
• Q3 2015 reflects production
curtailments
• Maintaining stripping levels
per long term mine plans
Lower capitalized stripping costs reflect cost reduction program
47

Steelmaking Coal: 5 Year Planning Objectives 2016
• Evaluating options to maintain annual
production levels
− Despite the closure of CMO and
CRO in the 5 year horizon
− Exploring lowest cost options at
remaining 4 Elk Valley operations
− Utilize assets available from
closed operations
• Maintain all operations cash positive
throughout the plan
− Embed continuous cost
improvement in each year
− Ensure plans meet short term
goals without sacrificing the long
term viability of the operations
• Future growth options remain available
but dependent on stronger coal prices -
5
10
15
20
25
30
2017F 2018F 2019F 2020F 2021F
Production(millionstonnes)
Conceptual Future Production Profile
FRO GHO (80%) EVO LCO CRO CMO Added Elk Valley
48

>75 Mt of West Coast Port Capacity Planned
Our Portion is 40 Mt
• Exclusive to Teck
• Recently expanded to 12.5 Mt
• Planned growth to 18.5 Mt
Westshore Terminals
Neptune Coal Terminal
Ridley Terminals
West Coast Port Capacity
• Current capacity: 18 Mt
• Expandable to 25 Mt
• Teck contracted at 3 Mt
• Teck is largest customer at 19 Mt
• Large stockpile area
• Recently expanded to 33 Mt
• Planned growth to 36 Mt
• Contract expires March 2021
MillionTonnes(Nominal)
Our share of capacity exceeds current production plans, including Quintette
12.5
18
33
6
7
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Neptune Coal
Terminal
Ridley
Terminals
Westshore
Terminals
Current Capacity Planned Growth
49

Our Market - Seaborne Hard Coking Coal2: ~200 Million Tonnes
1. Source: International Energy Agency 2014 data
2. Source: CRU
Global Coal Production1: 7.9 billion tonnes
Steelmaking Coal Production2: ~1,185 million tonnes
Export Steelmaking Coal2: ~325 million tonnes
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal2: ~290 million tonnes
High Grade Hard Coking Coal Is A Niche Market
50

• Around the world, and especially in
China, blast furnaces are getting
larger and increasing PCI rates
• Coke requirements for stable blast
furnace operation are becoming
increasingly higher
• Teck coals with high hot and cold
strength are ideally suited to ensure
stable blast furnace operation
• Produce some of the highest hot
strengths in the world
50 60 70 80 90 100
South Africa
Japan (Sorachl)
Japan
(Yubarl)
U.S.A.
Canada Other
Teck HCC
Australia
Japan
South Africa
Australia
(hard coking)
and Canada
U.S.A.
Australia
(soft coking)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Drum Strength Dl 30 (%)
CSR
Teck HCC
Coking Coal Strength
High Quality Hard Coking Coal
Source: Yasuschi, Masashi et al, 1983
51

Copper

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0¢
50¢
100¢
150¢
200¢
250¢
300¢
350¢
400¢
450¢
500¢
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
LME Stocks Comex SHFE Price
Copper Metal Prices & StocksUS¢/lb
thousandtonnes
Plotted to December. 31, 2016
Daily Copper Prices & Stocks
Source: LME, ICSG, ILZSG
53

-1,400
-1,200
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2016
YTD
Thousandtonnes
1. Relative to initial expectations
8.1%
Disruptions to Concentrate Production
Averaged 6.3% in 2007-20151
4.1%
• Currently a marginal
oversupply in a ~20 Mt market
• Additional ~2% disruption
could balance market
• Supply exceeding expectations
elsewhere
• Post-2017, new supply minimal
• Exchange stocks represent
<2 weeks of supply
Copper Surplus Could Shift Into Deficit
54

CRU Sees Concentrate Surplus Short Lived
55

Copper Mine Production
Forecasts Continue to Decline
Losses in 2016 already 81% of 2015 levels
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
18,500
Apr-15
Jun-15
Aug-15
Oct-15
Dec-15
Feb-16
Apr-16
Jun-16
Aug-16
5% Disruption net of Projects
Market Adjustment
2017 Adjusted
thousandtonnescontainedcopper
2016 2017
15,000
15,500
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
18,500
Apr-14
Jul-14
Oct-14
Jan-15
Apr-15
Jul-15
Oct-15
Jan-16
Apr-16
Jul-16
5% Disruption & Projects
Market Adjustment
2016 Adjusted
2018
• Up only 151 kt from 2016 net estimates
• Projects down 500 kmt from guidance in
March or 66%.
• Down 1.1 Mt from 2014 estimates
• Projects down by 92%
• Net mine production growth in 2016 now
only 3.0%, less than 500 kt
• Down 1.2 Mt from April 2015 estimates
• Projects down by 85% or 750 kt
Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
18,500
5% Disruption net of Projects
Market Adjustment
2017 Adjusted
56

0¢
10¢
20¢
30¢
40¢
50¢
60¢
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Standard Spot High Grade Spot Realised TC/RC
Copper Concentrate TC/RCs
Copper Concentrate TC/RCs
Plotted to December 2016Source: Teck, CRU
57

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
$/tonne
Cumulative Production %
2013 Cash Costs 2013 Total Costs 2014 Cash Costs 2014 Total Costs
Copper Costs Higher Than Understood
GFMS Net Cash and Total Cost Curves
2013 Price
2014 Price
2015 Price
Current Price (1/6/2017)
Source: GFMS, Thomson Reuters
58

(5,000)
(4,000)
(3,000)
(2,000)
(1,000)
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Margin(US$/tonne)
Cumulative Copper Production (kt)
At US$2.00 Copper At US$2.40 Copper
At US$2.40
6,239 kt
72nd Percentile
At US$2.00
4,270 kt
49th Percentile
Copper Margin Curve
Bernstein Estimated Margin After Sustaining Capex
Source: Bernstein Research
59

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Cathode Concs Scrap Blister/Semis
000’stonnes(content)
Net Copper Imports
Source: NBS Plotted to November 2016
Total copper unit imports continue to climb;
Up ~5% in 2015 and 16% year-to-date
China Switching to Copper Concentrates
60

Significant Chinese Copper Demand Remains
…But Will Add Significantly
in Additional Tonnage Terms
Annual Growth Rate of Chinese Copper
Consumption to Slow Dramatically…
China expected to add almost as much to global demand
in the next 15 years as the past 25 years
Source: Wood Mackenzie, Teck
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030
Annual Avg.
11.9%
Annual Avg.
2.8%
Annual Avg. Growth
356 Mt/yr
Annual Avg. Growth
325 Mt/yr
Thousandtonnes
Source: Wood Mackenzie, Teck
61

-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Apr-15
Jun-15
Aug-15
Oct-15
Dec-15
Feb-16
Apr-16
Jun-16
Aug-16
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Mar-16
Apr-16
May-16
Jun-16
Jul-16
Aug-16
Sep-16
Since March 2016
• The surplus is still below 200 kmt or balanced
2016 2017
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Apr-14
Jul-14
Oct-14
Jan-15
Apr-15
Jul-15
Oct-15
Jan-16
Apr-16
Jul-16
2018
Global Copper Cathode Balances
Wood Mackenzie’s Outlook is Trending Down
Since December 2014
• Despite a drop of 660 kt to Wood Mackenzie’s
demand estimates
• Their surplus is down 700 kt
Since April 2015
• Down from a 510 kt surplus
• Despite a 510 kt drop in demand
• Market now in slight deficit
Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie
Forecast surplus now below 200 kt or 0.7%
62

(2,000)
(1,500)
(1,000)
(500)
0
500
1,000
2012 2015 2018 2021
Thousandtonnes
• At 1.8% global demand growth, 470 kt
of new supply needed annually
• Structural deficits start in 2018-2019
• Projects delayed today will not be
available to the market by 2019
• Market finely balanced through 2018
− Year-to-date disruptions below
estimates
− Two of the largest projects this
year are heavily weighted to H2
increases
Forecast Copper Refined Balance
Long-Term Copper Mine Production Still Needed
Source: ICSG, Wood Mackenzie, Teck
63

Ore Grade Trends
Ongoing Decline will put Upward Pressure on Unit Costs
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024
CopperGradeCu%
All Operations Primary Mines Co-By Product Mines - (RH axis)
Industry Head Grade Trends (Weighted by Paid Copper)
64

Building Partnerships: NuevaUnión
Teck and Goldcorp have combined Relincho
and El Morro projects and formed a 50/50
joint venture company called NuevaUnión
• Committed to building strong, mutually
beneficial relationships with
stakeholders and communities
Capital smart partnership
• Shared capital, common infrastructure
• Shared risk, shared rewards
Benefits of combining projects include:
• Longer mine life
• Lower cost, improved capital efficiency
• Reduced environmental footprint
• Enhanced community benefits
• Greater returns over either standalone
project
65

NuevaUnión Summary
Initial Capital
$3.0 - $3.5
billion
Copper Production1
190,000
tonnes per year
Gold Production1
315,000
ounces per year
Mine Life
32+
years
Copper in Reserves2
16.6
billion pounds
Gold in Reserves2
8.9
million ounces
Note: Conceptual based on preliminary design from the PEA
1. Average production rates are based on the first full ten years of operations
2. Total copper and gold contained in mineral reserves as reported separately by Teck and Goldcorp.
3. Capital estimate for Phase 1a based on preliminary design shown in 2015 dollars on an unescalated basis
66

NuevaUnión is one of the largest open pit copper development projects in the
Americas on the basis of copper contained in Proven and Probable Reserves
Copper Development Projects in the Americas
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Radomiro
Tomic
Corridor
ElArco
Quebrada
BlancaII
Quellaveco
AguaRica
Relincho
ElMorro
Casino
SchaftCreek
GaloreCreek
RioBlanco
CopperEquivalentinReserves(Mlbs)
Copper-equivalent contained in Reserves (Mlbs)
(North & South American Copper Projects)
Note: Copper equivalent reserves calculated using $3.25/lb Cu and $1,200/oz Au. Does not include copper resource projects that are currently in construction
NuevaUnión
Source: SNL Metals & Mining, Thomson One Analytics, and company disclosures.
67

Zinc Metal Prices & Stocks
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0¢
50¢
100¢
150¢
200¢
250¢
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
LME Stocks SHFE Price
US¢/lb
Plotted to December 31, 2016Source: LME/SHFE
Daily Zinc Prices & Stocks
69

0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 2014 2015 2016
Monthly Chinese Zinc Mine Production
LME Zinc Stocks
Zinc Mine Production
Undersupplied, Even With Lower Growth
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
50¢
70¢
90¢
110¢
130¢
150¢
Jan-13
Apr-13
Jul-13
Oct-13
Jan-14
Apr-14
Jul-14
Oct-14
Jan-15
Apr-15
Jul-15
Oct-15
Jan-16
Apr-16
Jul-16
Oct-16
Stocks Price
• Metal market in deficit
• LME stocks down >790 kt over 48
months
• Market working through ‘off-market’
inventory
• Large periodic increases indicate
significant off-market inventories
flowing through LME to consumers
• Chinese zinc mine production down
over the last 44 months
US¢/lb
thousandtonnes
Source: LME, NBS, CNIA
Source: LME, NBS, CNIA Plotted to December 31, 2016
70

• Down 911 kt from January 2015
estimates
• Down 1,751 kt from January 2015
estimates
Zinc Mine Production
Wood Mackenzie’s Outlook is Trending Down
thousandtonnescontainedzinc
2015 2016 2017
• Down 983 kt from April 2015 estimates
12,000
12,500
13,000
13,500
14,000
14,500
15,000
Feb-13
Jun-13
Oct-13
Feb-14
Jun-14
Oct-14
Feb-15
Jun-15
Oct-15
Feb-16
Jun-16
12,000
12,500
13,000
13,500
14,000
14,500
15,000
12,000
12,500
13,000
13,500
14,000
14,500
15,000
Apr-15
Jun-15
Aug-15
Oct-15
Dec-15
Feb-16
Apr-16
Jun-16
Aug-16
Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie
71

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
InnerMongolia
Yunnan
Shaanxi
Hunan
Guangxi
Gansu
Sichuan
Fujian
Guangdong
Kt,metalcontent
Jan-Oct 2013 Jan-Oct 2014 Jan-Oct 2015 Jan-Oct 2016
Provincial Zinc Mine Production Zinc Mine Production in Regions with Many Small Mines
Source: BGRIMM
Chinese Zinc Concentrate Production
Source: CNIA/NBS
Declining production in most major zinc concentrate
producing regions in China in 2015
72

2014-2020 2014-2020
Significant Zinc Mine Reductions
Large Short-Term Losses, More Long Term
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
Century
Lisheen
Skorpion
RedDog
Bracemac-McLeod
RapuraAgucha
Pomorzany-Olkusz(inclBulk)
Jaguar
Mid-Tennessee
MaeSod
Endeavor
0
100
200
300
400
500
Gamsberg
Antamina
DugaldRiver
McArthurRiver
Bisha
GansuJinhui
Kyzyl-Tashtygskoe
ShalkiyaRestart
SindesarKhurd
AguasTenidas
Changba
ZawarMines
MiddleTennessee
ElBrocal
Sanguikou
Caribou…
SanCristobal
Penasquito
Source: ICSG, Wood Mackenzie Teck, Company Reports Source: ICSG, Wood Mackenzie Teck, Company Reports
73

LME Zinc Stocks – Since Dec 2012LME Zinc Stocks - 11 Years
Zinc Inventories Declining
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
50¢
60¢
70¢
80¢
90¢
100¢
110¢
120¢
130¢
140¢
Dec-12
Mar-13
Jun-13
Sep-13
Dec-13
Mar-14
Jun-14
Sep-14
Dec-14
Mar-15
Jun-15
Sep-15
Dec-15
Mar-16
Jun-16
Sep-16
Dec-16
Stocks Price
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0¢
50¢
100¢
150¢
200¢
250¢
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Stocks Price
US¢/lb
thousandtonnes
Plotted to December 31, 2016
US¢/lb
thousandtonnes
• LME stocks down ~790 kt over 48 months
• Large inventory position still to work down but we are under 500 kt for the first time
since early 2010, now nearing 420kt.
• Large, sudden increases indicate there are also significant off-market inventories
flowing through the LME to consumers
Source: LME Source: LME Plotted to December 31, 2016
74

Monthly Chinese Mined Zinc Production
Chinese Mined Zinc Production
Seasonality is a Potential Catalyst for Market Inflection
Source: Teck, CNIA
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Jan-06
May-06
Sep-06
Jan-07
May-07
Sep-07
Jan-08
May-08
Sep-08
Jan-09
May-09
Sep-09
Jan-10
May-10
Sep-10
Jan-11
May-11
Sep-11
Jan-12
May-12
Sep-12
Jan-13
May-13
Sep-13
Jan-14
May-14
Sep-14
Jan-15
May-15
Sep-15
Jan-16
May-16
ThousandsDMT
Production typically declines in winter (January-April)
Declining ~10% annually
since peak in late 2013
75

Zinc Concentrate Stocks at Chinese Ports Declining
Monthly Stocks of Zinc Concentrate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
ThousandTonnes
Huangpu port:
Zhanjiang port:
Beihai port:
Yunyuejiang port
Fangcheng port:
Nanjing port:
Qinzhou port:
Dalian port:
BaYuQuan port:
QHD port:
Jinzhou port:
Yantai Port:
LYG port:
Source: Teck76

Zinc Metal Market Mostly in Deficit Since 2013
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
WoodMac CRU
Market View – Wood Mackenzie & CRU
• Zinc metal deficit forecasted for 2016 and 2017
• Mine production increases of -5.2% and 10.2%
respectively expected for 2016 and 2017
− Closure of Century and Lisheen, combined
with production cuts, will decrease mine
production in 2016
− Higher prices are expected to bring a large
amount of Chinese mine production online,
and to bring back Glencore’s production.
• Deficits of around 500kt/year in 2016 and 2017
will still result in large draw down of stocks
Zinc Metal Balance
Source: Wood Mackenzie, CRU
77

China
5%
USA
20%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Galvanized Steel as % Crude ProductionChina Zinc Demand
Construction
15%
Transportation
20%
Other
5%
Consumer Goods
30%
Infrastructure
30%
Chinese Zinc Demand to Outpace Supply
Source: Teck
If China were to galvanize crude steel at half the rate of the US using the same rate of
zinc/tonne, a further 2.1 Mt would be added to global zinc consumption
Source: Teck
78

Committed Zinc Supply Insufficient for Demand
Forecast Zinc Refined Balance
Source: Teck
• We expect insufficient mine supply to
constrain refined production
− From 2015-2020, refined metal supply
increase of only 355 kt
− Over the same period, refined demand
increase of 2.2 Mt
• Market is projected to be in significant
deficit in 2016 due to a lack of
concentrate leading to smelter cuts
• Metal market moving into substantial
deficits with further mine closures and
depleting inventories
(1,200)
(1,000)
(800)
(600)
(400)
(200)
0
200
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Thousandtonnes
79

• Red Dog has stable zinc production despite declining grade
• Pend Oreille moving to a higher proportion of secondary mining,
which improves selectivity and ore availability
• Increased refined zinc production at Trail with enhanced process
stability of a new acid plant
80
Poised to Capitalize on Improving Zinc Fundamentals
80

2cm
1.1 m @ 42.2% Zn, 14.7 % Pb, 558g/t Ag
2cm
1.9 m @ 24.6% Zn, 6.3 % Pb, 53g/t Ag
Red Dog: Anarraaq High Grade Intercepts
Demonstrate Significant Resource Potential1
DDH1718
54.7m @ 15.7%Zn, 4.0% Pb, 106g/t Ag
Incl. 11.2m @ 34.2% Zn, 11.5% Pb, 382g/t Ag
DDH1714
42m @ 18.3% Zn, 4.5% Pb, 82g/t Ag
Incl. 23.4m @ 23.2% Zn, 5.2% Pb, 74g/t Ag81
Industry Average Zinc Grades Falling
High Grade Anarraaq Intercepts
Red Dog zinc grades are much
higher than industry average
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Grade%
Weighted Average
Industry Grade
Red Dog
1. The scientific and technical information disclosed has been reviewed and approved
by Rodrigo Marinho, P.Geo., Technical Director, Reserve Evaluation, Teck who is
a Qualified Person under NI 43-101. For further information, please see Teck’s
most recent Annual Information Form.

0 250 500
Meters
Teena 1
TNDD015
NR
28.0 @ 6.1/0.9
TNDD013
5.8 @ 9.3/1.3
16.6 @ 7.7/1.3
TNDD012
Teena 5
NR
3.8 @ 6.9/1.1
Teena 2
TNDD014
24.4 @ 14.6/2.3
9.8 @ 9.4/1.5
TNDD020
20.1 @ 13.0/2.0
5.2 @ 9.2/1.6
TNDD010
38.8 @ 14.7/2.3
3.0 @ 4.6/2.9
6.7 @ 8.2/1.4
TNDD019
31.9 @ 9.9/1.5
5.0 @ 9.5/1.2
TNDD009
13.1 @ 5.2/0.9
Teena 6
22.8 @ 10.3/1.6
3.8 @ 10.3/0.7
Teena 22
24.2 @ 8.2/1.3
3.6 @ 8.3/1.3
Teena 17
20.4 @ 11.6/1.8
4.7 @ 8.5/1.2
TNDD011
Teena 4/Teena 4A
4.8 @ 5.5/2.7 (4)
8.4 @ 12.9/0.2 (4)
8.6 @ 7.1/2.7 (4A)
19.7 @ 12.9/2.0
7.2 @ 8.0/1.2
TNDD021
Teena 7
5.8 @ 8.1/1.1
4.9 @ 10.2/1.6
6.0 @ 5.9/0.9
Teena/Reward Zinc Project
TenementBoundary
DDH Pierce Points
NR No results above threshold
Drill composites were calculated using a 6% Zn+Pb threshold. Drill intersections are reported as drilled thicknesses. True width of the mineralized interval is interpreted to be 70-90% of the
reported length. The scientific and technical information disclosed on this slide has been reviewed and approved by Rodrigo Marinho, P.Geo., Technical Director, Reserve Evaluation, Teck who is
a qualified person under NI 43-101.
m @ Zn%/Pb%
NR
Teena 8
NR
NR
82

Energy

North American Rig Counts Down Sharply
North American Rig Count & US Production
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Jan-11
Jan-12
Jan-13
Jan-14
Jan-15
Jan-16
Thousandbpd
RigcountUnits
US Rig Count CAD Rig Count US 4-week Production Avg.
Source: Baker Hughes, EIA, National Bank of Canada, HIS, US Department Of Energy Plotted to December 23 2016
84

Oil Liquids – Discovered Resources & Production (Billion bbl)
Oil Exploration Success Fell
To a Post-1952 Low in 2015
Enough oil has been discovered to meet production
in only four of the past 30 years
Source: Rystad Energy, Morgan Stanley
85

Wood Mackenzie Forecasted
Global Oil Demand By Sector (2010-2035)
World Oil Demand Still Growing
Source: Wood Mackenzie Global Macro Oils Long Term Outlook Nov 201686

Source: BMO Capital Markets, May 2016
Oil Sands Mining Costs Lower Than Understood
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cash Cost Royalty Cash Tax Sustaining Capex
$/bbl Phase 2: Stabilized Market
Where we are now
87

Sufficient Western Canadian
Takeaway Capacity Expected
Western Canadian Supply and Takeaway Capacity
Source: CAPP, Teck, Lee & Doma Energy Group
Sufficient takeaway capacity
expected for forecast growth
• 2011–2014
− Rapid production growth resulted in
takeaway capacity challenges
− Industry added significant pipeline and
rail capacity during this time
• 2015–2030
− Existing pipeline capacity, new pipelines
(TMX and KXL) and existing rail capacity
expected to provide sufficient takeaway
capacity
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
kbpd
Western Canada Supply Growth Western Canada Supply
Total Pipeline & Local Refining Total Pipeline, Local Refining & Rail
Fort Hills’ First Oil
TMX & KXL
88

Building An Energy Business
Strategic diversification
Large truck & shovel mining
projects
World-class resources
Long-life assets
Mining-friendly jurisdiction
Competitive margins
Minimizing execution risk
Tax effective








Mined bitumen is in Teck’s ‘sweet spot’
89

• Significant value created
over long term
• 60% of PV of cash flows
beyond year 5
• IRR of 50-year project is
only ~1% higher than a 20-
year project
• Options for debottlenecking
and expansion
50-year assets provide for superior returns
operating through many price cycles
The Real Value of Long-Life Assets
Fort Hills Project Indicative Rolling NPV1
1. Indicative NPV assumes US$95 WTI, $1.05 Canadian/US dollar exchange rate, and costs as disclosed with the Fort Hills sanction decision (October 30, 2013).90

Teck’s Sanction Capital2
~$2.94
billion
Teck’s Estimated 2016 Spend
$960
million
Teck’s Share of Production
36,000
bitumen barrels per day
Operating & Sustaining Costs1
$25-28
per barrel of bitumen
Sustaining Capital1,3
$3-5
per barrel of bitumen
Teck’s Share of Production
13,000,000
bitumen barrels per year
1. All costs and capital are based on Suncor’s estimates at project sanction in October 2013. Suncor is currently reviewing cost estimates.
2. Sanction capital is the go-forward amount from the date of the Fort Hills sanction decision (October 30, 2013), denominated in Canadian dollars and on a fully-escalated basis. Includes earn-in of
$240M.
3. Sustaining capital is included in operating & sustaining costs.
Mine life: 50 years
Fort Hills Key Numbers1
91

1. Estimates are based on exchange rates as shown, expected bitumen netbacks, and operating costs of C$25 per barrel (including sustaining capital of C$3-5 per barrel).
2. Per barrel of bitumen.
3. Sanction capex is the go-forward amount from the date of the Fort Hills sanction decision (October 30, 2013), denominated in Canadian dollars and on a fully-escalated basis.
4. Pre-tax free cash flow yield during pre and post capital recovery periods.
5. Post-payout estimated net margin includes C$1.50 export market premium.
The Fort Hills project is expected to have significant
free cash flow yield across a range of WTI prices
Fort Hills Free Cash Flow Yield4
Sensitivity to WTI Price
Potential Contribution
from Fort Hills
US$60 WTI
& $1.30
USD/CAD
US$75 WTI
& $1.20
USD/CAD
Pre-Payout Post-Payout
Teck’s share of annual production
(36,000 bpd)
13 Mbpa 13 Mbpa
Estimated netback2 ~$40/bbl ~$55.50/bbl
Estimated operating margin2 ~$15/bbl ~$30.50/bbl
Alberta oil royalty2 ~$1.50/bbl ~$10/bbl
Estimated net margin2,5 ~$13.50/bbl ~$22/bbl
Annual pre-tax cash flow ~$180 M ~$290 M
Teck’s share of sanction capex3 ~$2,940 M ~$2,940 M
Free cash flow yield4 ~6% ~10%
Fort Hills Project Economics Are Robust1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
$40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $110 $120
FreeCashFlowYield
WTI $/bbl
Post-Payout
@$1.20 USD/CAD
Pre-Payout
@$1.30 USD/CAD
Source: Teck
92

$60 $58.75
$40
$13.50 $15
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Royalties based on pre-capital payout.
* WTI/WCS Differential based on Lee & Doma 2016-2020 forecast average.
** Export Premium based on average premium pricing for USGC market via Keystone and Flanagan South Pipelines.
1. Estimates are based on C$/US$ exchange rates as shown, expected bitumen netbacks, operating costs of C$25 per barrel (including sustaining capital of C$3-5 per barrel) and Phase 1 (pre-capital
payout) royalties.
Cash Margin1 Calculation Example: Prior to Capital Recovery
Fort Hills Bitumen Netback Calculation Model
$13.50
$10
$14.75 $7-9$1.25
$22
$3 $1.50 $1-2
Source: Alberta Energy bitumen valuation methodology (http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/1542.asp)
93

Fort Hills Bitumen Netback Calculation Model
$22
$3
$10
$1-2
Royalties based on pre-capital payout.
* WTI/WCS Differential based on Lee & Doma 2021-2030 forecast average.
** Export Premium based on average premium pricing for USGC market via Keystone and Flanagan South Pipelines.
1. Estimates are based on C$/US$ exchange rates as shown, expected bitumen netbacks, operating costs of C$25 per barrel (including sustaining capital of C$3-5 per barrel) and post payout royalties.
$75 $74
$55.50
$20.50 $22
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Cash Margin1 Calculation Example: Post Capital Recovery
$12.35$13.25
$10
$7-9$1.25
Source: Alberta Energy bitumen valuation methodology (http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/1542.asp)
94

Western Canadian Select (WCS)
Average Monthly WTI-WCS Differential
Western Canadian Select (WCS) Is The Benchmark
Price For Canadian Heavy Oil At Hardisty, Alberta
WCS differential to West Texas Intermediate (WTI)
• Contract settled monthly as differential to Nymex WTI
• Long term differential of Nymex WTI minus $10-20 US/bbl
• Based on heavy/light differential, supply/demand, alternate
feedstock accessibility, refinery outages and export capability
− Narrowed in 2014/2015 due to export capacity growth, rail
capacity increases, and short term production outages
• Recently improved export capability to mitigate volatility
− Further export capacity subject to rigorous regulatory review;
potential impact to WCS differentials.
WTI (US/bbl) $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100
WCS Differential to
Nymex WTI (US/bbl)
-$13.00 -$14.50 -$15.50 -$17.00 -$18.00 -$19.50 -$20.50
*Forecast Assumptions: Fort Hills Startup 2017/2018 with supply/demand model exiting Western Canada in a constrained pipe/excess rail transportation
model, per Lee & Doma Energy Consulting.
FORECAST*
Source: Shorecan, Net Energy, Lee & Doma Plotted to Jan 2017
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
WCS Differential (US$/bbl)Long-term WCS Differential
$23.12
2012-2013
$15.69
2010-2011
$16.45
2014-2015
$13.96
2016-2017YTD
95

Diluent (C5+) Pricing
Average Monthly WTI/Diluent (C5+) Differential
Diluent (C5+) at Edmonton, Alberta Is the benchmark
contract for diluent supply for oil sands
Diluent differential to West Texas Intermediate (WTI)
• Contract settled monthly as differential to Nymex WTI
• Based on supply/demand, seasonal demand (high in winter, low
in summer), import outages
• Long-term diluent (C5+) differential of Nymex WTI +/- $5 US/bbl
Diluent “Pool” in Edmonton is a common stream of a
variety of qualities
• Diluent pool comprised of local and imported natural gas liquids
WTI (US/bbl) $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100
Diluent (C5+) Differential
to Nymex WTI (US/bbl)
+$2.50 +$1.50 +$0.50 -$0.50 -$1.50 -$2.50 -$3.50
*Forecast Assumptions: Fort Hills Startup 2017/2018, using 2015 CAPP Western Canadian oil production forecast, Diluent (C5+) differentials per Lee &
Doma Energy Consulting
FORECAST*
$(10)
$(5)
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
Jan-10
May-10
Sep-10
Jan-11
May-11
Sep-11
Jan-12
May-12
Sep-12
Jan-13
May-13
Sep-13
Jan-14
May-14
Sep-14
Jan-15
May-15
Sep-15
Jan-16
May-16
Sep-16
Jan-17
WTI- C5+ Diff
Source: Shorecan, Net Energy, Lee & Doma
Plotted to Jan 2017
Long-term C5+ Diff (US$/bbl)
96

Progress in Implementing Our
Diversified Marketing Strategy
Market Access Options for Teck’s 50 kbbls/day
of Fort Hills Diluted Bitumen Blend
Cushing
Flanagan
Houston
Kitimat
Edmonton
US
Gulf Coast
Europe
Asia
TransCanada Energy East (Proposed, Contract Carriage)
Enbridge Northern Gateway (Proposed, Contract Carriage)
TransCanada Keystone/MarketLink (Existing, Contract Carriage)
Enbridge Flanagan South (Existing, Contract Carriage)
Vancouver
TransMountain Pipeline Expansion (Proposed, Contract Carriage)
Asia
Agreements for pipelines to Hardisty in place
Agreement for Hardisty product storage in place
Monitoring production vs market access balance
Developing a portfolio of pipeline capacity
opportunities, to enable access to diversified
markets
Evaluating opportunities in the secondary market
for pipeline capacity
Developing a diversified customer base
Hardisty
Chicago
Sarnia
Patoka
Superior
Guernsey
Montreal
Saint John
Enbridge Mainline System (Existing, Common Carriage)
Spectra Express (Existing, Contract Carriage)
Teck can enter into long-term
take or pay contracts
97

Intra Alberta Logistics
On Schedule For Fort Hills Commissioning
Rail
Local Market
Pipeline Legend
Bitumen
Blend
Diluent
Existing
New
East Tank Farm
Blending w/Condensate
Wood Buffalo
Extension
Norlite
Diluent Pipeline
Cheecham
Terminal
Hardisty
Terminal
Wood Buffalo
Pipeline
Athabasca
Pipeline
Edmonton
Terminal
Fort Hills
Mine Terminal
Northern Courier
Hot Bitumen Pipeline
Teck
Options
Export Pipeline
Kirby Athabasca Twin
Pipeline
Pipeline/Terminal Operator
Pipeline
Capacity
(kbpd)
Teck
Capacity
(kbpd)
Project Construction Status*
(% completion)
Northern Courier Hot Bitumen TransCanada 202 40.4
Pipeline and Facilities:
Tank terminal:
East Tank Farm - Blending Suncor 292 58.4 Diluent terminaling and blending
Wood Buffalo Blend Pipeline Enbridge 550 65.3 In service
Wood Buffalo Extension Enbridge 550 65.3
Pipeline:
Pump stations and facilities:
Norlite Diluent Pipeline Enbridge 130 18.0
Pipeline:
Pumpstations and facilities:
Hardisty Blend Tankage Gibsons 425 kbbls 425 kbbls Tank completed
86%
85%
100%
100%
81%
98%
100%
60%
84%
*As of December 2016.98

CIBC Whistler Institutional Investor Conference

Related slideshows

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to CIBC Whistler Institutional Investor Conference

Similar to CIBC Whistler Institutional Investor Conference (20)

More from TeckResourcesLtd

More from TeckResourcesLtd (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CIBC Whistler Institutional Investor Conference