Citi Basic Materials Conference

Basic Materials Conference
December 4, 2019
Fraser Phillips, Senior Vice President
Investor Relations and Strategic Analysis

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
2
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) and comparable legislation in other provinces (collectively referred to herein as forward-looking statements). Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is
expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, or “believes”, or variation of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “should”, “would”, “might” or
“will” be taken, occur or be achieved. 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 management’s expectations with respect to: future value catalysts, including Teck’s
intention or ability to return cash to shareholders; Teck’s capital priorities and objectives of its capital allocation framework, including with respect to its dividend policy, share repurchases, and maintenance of investment grade metrics, production,
supply, demand and outlook regarding coal, copper, zinc and energy for Teck and global markets generally; expectations regarding the amount of cash returns to shareholders under our capital allocation framework and more generally; expected
US$150 million of annualized EBITDA by end of 2019 and other benefits and value to be generated from our RACE21TM innovation-driven efficiency program and the associated implementation costs; timing of Neptune Facility upgrade; projected
and targeted operating and capital costs; expected EBITDA margins at our operations; future value from QB2/QB3; Teck’s share of remaining equity capital and timing of contributions relating to our QB2 project; targeted total reductions and timing
related to the cost reduction program; all projections and expectations regarding QB2 and QB3, including, but not limited to, those set out in the "QB2 Value Creation" and “Quebrada Blanca” Appendix (including, but not limited to, statements that
QB2 will be a world class, low cost copper opportunity, statements and expectations regarding the value and amount of contingent consideration, timing of first production, long-life and expansion potential, projected IRR, QB2 throughput, mine life,
projected copper production including Teck’s pro-forma copper exposure estimates, strip-ratios, costs (including C1 and AISC), reserves and resources, construction schedule and ownership of pipelines and port facilities, expansion and extension
potential, Teck’s expectations around how it will fund QB2 development costs, all economic and financial projections regarding the QB2 project and Teck’s contributions thereto including expected EBITDA from the project); long-term strategy;
anticipated capital allocation; our sustainability strategy and the targets, goals and expectations relating thereto; the long life of our projects and operations, their positioning on the cost curve and the low risk of the jurisdictions in which they are
located; mine life estimates; commodity price leverage; our reserve and resource estimates; potential growth options; all guidance including but not limited to production guidance, sales and unit cost guidance and capital expenditures guidance;
future commodity prices; the benefits of our innovation strategy and initiatives described under the “Technology and Innovation” Appendix and elsewhere, including regarding smart shovels, autonomous haul trucks and artificial intelligence, and the
savings potential associated therewith; the coal market generally; growth potential for our steelmaking coal production, including our expectation that our coal reserves support approximately 27+ million tonnes of production in 2020 and beyond; strip
ratios; capital expenditures in coal; West Coast port capacity increases and access; capital costs for water treatment; the copper market generally; copper growth potential and expectations regarding the potential production profile of our various
copper projects; our Highland Valley Copper 2040 Project; our Project Satellite projects including future spending and potential mine life; the zinc market generally; anticipated zinc production, capital investments and costs; our potential zinc projects,
including but not limited to the Red Dog extension project; benefits and timing of the Red Dog VIP2 project; the energy market generally; the potential for significant EBITDA upside in our Energy unit and steady cash flow; anticipated Fort Hills
production and cost estimates and debottlenecking opportunities; potential benefits and capacity increase from debottlenecking opportunities at Fort Hills and costs associated with debottlenecking; production estimates and timing for regulatory
approvals at Frontier; potential for longer term expansion opportunities at Fort Hills and associated costs; potential for significant EBITDA upside potential in Energy; Teck’s Energy outlook; and the low carbon intensity of Fort Hills.
The forward-looking statements, including statements relating to QB2, are based on and involve numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties and actual results may vary materially. These statements are based on assumptions, including, but not
limited to, general business and economic conditions, interest rates, the supply and demand for, deliveries of, and the level and volatility of prices of, zinc, copper, coal, blended bitumen, and other primary metals, minerals and products as well as
steel, oil, natural gas, petroleum, and related products, the timing of the receipt of regulatory and governmental approvals for our development projects and other operations and new technologies, 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 successfully implement our technology and innovation
strategy, the performance of new technologies in accordance with our expectations, 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, our
expectations with respect to the carbon intensity of our operations, assumptions regarding returns of cash to shareholders include assumptions regarding our future business and prospects, other uses for cash or retaining cash. 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. Assumptions are also included in the
footnotes to various slides. Our anticipated RACE21TM related EBITDA improvements and associated costs assume that the relevant projects are implemented in accordance with our plans and budget, and are based on current commodity price
assumptions and forecast sale volumes. Payment of dividends is in the discretion of the board of directors. QB2 Project assumptions are based on current project plans. Assumptions are also included in the footnotes to the slides.
Statements regarding our 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 and assumes resources are upgraded to reserves, permits are obtained for all proposed expansions and developments, and that all mineral and oil and gas reserves and resources could be mined. Management’s expectations of mine life
are based on the current planned production rates and assume that all reserves and resources described in this presentation are developed. 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. Our estimated profit and EBITDA and EBITDA sensitivity estimates are based on the commodity price and assumptions stated on the relevant slide or footnote, as well as other
assumptions including foreign exchange rates. Cost statements are based on assumptions noted in the relevant slide or footnote. Statements regarding future production are based on the assumption of project sanctions and mine production.

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
3
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.
Statements regarding anticipated steelmaking coal sales volumes and average steelmaking coal prices depend on timely arrival of vessels and performance of our steelmaking coal-loading facilities, as well as the level of spot pricing sales.
All QB2 economic analysis assume the inferred resources in the Sanction Case and inferred resources are considered too geologically speculative to be economic. Forward-looking statements relating to the timing and amount of Teck’s equity
contributions for QB2 assume that the project spending does not increase and contributions are required in accordance with the current project schedule. All QB2 mining and economic projections (including QB2 mine life, throughput, timing of first
production, amount of production, costs (including C1 and AISC), expected EBITDA from the project) and projected capital intensity figures depend on the QB2 project coming into production in accordance with the current budget and project
schedule. The final amount of the US$50 million contingent payment is tied to throughput and depends on achieving certain throughput targets by December 31, 2025 and is subject to reduction in the event that certain throughput and recovery
targets are not achieved. Assumptions are also included in the footnotes to various slides. The foregoing list of assumptions is not exhaustive.
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 and
domestic governments; the outcome of legal proceedings; inaccurate geological and metallurgical assumptions (including with respect to the size, grade and recoverability of 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); any change or deterioration in our relationships with our joint venture partners; union labour disputes;
political risk; social unrest; consequences of climate change; changes in laws or regulations or enforcement thereof; development and use of new technology; failure of customers or counterparties (including but not limited to rail, port, pipeline and
other logistics providers) to perform their contractual obligations; changes in our credit ratings or the financial market in general; unanticipated increases in costs to construct our development projects; difficulty in obtaining permits or securing
transportation for our products; inability to address concerns regarding permits of environmental impact assessments; changes in tax benefits or tax rates; resolution of environmental and other proceedings or disputes; and changes or 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 or operations, if we do not obtain relevant permits for our operations. Our Fort Hills and Antamina operations
are not controlled by us; as a result the actions of our partners may affect anticipated outcomes. Purchases of Class B shares under the normal course issuer bid may be impacted by, amount other things, availability of Class B shares, share price
volatility, and availability of funds to purchase shares. Capital allocation expectations depend on availability of cash, and are subject to changes in policies or priorities. EBITDA improvements may be impacted by the effectiveness of our projects,
actual commodity prices and sales volumes.
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 and other subsequent filings, all filed under our profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on
EDGAR (www.sec.gov).
Scientific and technical information regarding our material mining projects in this presentation was approved by Mr. Rodrigo Alves Marinho, P.Geo., an employee of Teck. Mr. Marinho is a qualified person, as defined under National Instrument (NI)
43-101.
QB2 Project Disclosure
All economic analysis with respect to the QB2 project based on a development case which includes inferred resources within the life of mine plan, referred to as the Sanction Case, which is the case on which Teck is basing its development decision
for the QB2 project. Inferred resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. Inferred resources are subject to greater
uncertainty than measured or indicated resources and it cannot be assumed that they will be successfully upgraded to measured and indicated through further drilling. Nonetheless, based on the nature of the mineralization, Teck has used a mine
plan including inferred resources as the development mine plan for the QB2 project.
The economic analysis of the Sanction Case, which includes inferred resources, may be compared to economic analysis regarding a hypothetical mine plan which does not include the use of inferred resources as mill feed, referred to as the Reserve
Case, and which is set out in Appendix slides “QB2 Project Economics Comparison” and “QB2 Reserves and Resources Comparison” and is further discussed in our Annual Information Form filed under our profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and
on EDGAR (www.sec.gov).
The scientific and technical information regarding the QB2 project was prepared under the supervision of Rodrigo Marinho, P. Geo, who is an employee of Teck. Mr. Marinho is a qualified person, as defined under National Instrument 43-101.

Milestones
Achieved
Solid
Foundation
Future Value
Catalysts
A Transformational Time for Teck
4
• QB2 permit received,
sanctioning announced,
partnership closed and
project financing closed
• Fort Hills ramp up
• Waneta sale closed
• Returned to investment
grade credit rating
• Quality operating assets
in stable jurisdictions
• Strong financial position
• Top-ranked for
sustainability leadership
• QB2/QB3
• Transformation
through innovation:
RACE21TM
Capital Allocation Framework

Key Priorities
5
• Company-wide program underway
• Targeting total reductions of ~$500 million
through the end of 2020
Cost Reduction ProgramNeptune Facility Upgrade
RACE21TM
• Accelerating our innovation-driven efficiency
program
• Working towards $150 million improvement
in annualized EBITDA1 by end of 2019
• Secures a long term, low cost and reliable
supply chain for our steelmaking coal business
• Ensures we deliver on our commitments to
shareholders and customers
QB2
• Long-life, low-cost operation with major
expansion potential
• QB3 has potential to become a top five
global copper producer
• Rebalances our portfolio over time
Focus on health and safety and sustainability leadership

RACE21TM
• Looks across the full value chain, from
mine to port
• Leverages existing, proven technology
to improve productivity and lower costs
• Focused on delivering significant value
by 2021
- 2019: Expansion of programs such as
predictive maintenance, use of mining
analytics, and processing improvements
- 2020: Expect full-year target to be announced
with Q4 2019 results
6
Accelerating Our RACE21TM Innovation-Driven
Efficiency Program
Expect to generate an initial $150 million in annualized EBITDA1 improvements by year end

QB2 Value Creation
Delivers on Copper Growth Strategy
• Rebalances Teck's portfolio over time to make
the contribution from copper similar to
steelmaking coal
• World class, low cost copper opportunity in an
excellent geopolitical jurisdiction
• First production in late 2021
• Very attractive IRR1
‒ At US$3.00/lb copper, unlevered IRR is 19% and
levered IRR is 30%
• Vast, long life deposit with expansion potential
(QB3)
7
Based on Sanction Case (Including 199 Mt Inferred Resources)
Refer to “QB2 Project Economics Comparison” and “QB2 Reserves and Resources Comparison” slides for Reserve Case (Excluding Inferred Resources)
The description of the QB2 project Sanction Case includes inferred resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that
would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. Inferred resources are subject to greater uncertainty than measured or indicated resources and it cannot be assumed that they
will be successfully upgraded to measured and indicated through further drilling.
Low Strip Ratio2
QB2 (0.7:1)
Antamina (2.9:1)3
Collahuasi (3.4:1)3
Escondida (2.6:1)3

• Secures a long term, low cost and
reliable supply chain for our
steelmaking coal business
• Ensures we have the flexibility to
deliver to our customers when prices
are high
• Significant returns generated from
lower operating costs and increased
flexibility to respond to market
opportunities
• Expected completion in Q1 2021
8
Neptune Facility Upgrade

Cost Reduction Program
Implementing a company-wide cost reduction program
in response to current global economic uncertainty
• Targeting total reductions of ~$500 million from previously planned spending
through the end of 2020
• Expect to eliminate ~500 full-time equivalent positions
• Target cost reductions do not include initiatives that would result in a reduction
in production volumes or that could adversely affect the environment or
health and safety
9

Teck’s Performance on Top ESG Ratings
ESG Evaluation Teck’s Performance
• Named to 2019 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations list by
Corporate Knights
• Ranked 37th globally; only mining company listed
• Top-ranked mining company on both the World and North American
Indices in 2019
• Included in the index for 10 consecutive years
• “A” rating since 2013 (scale of CCC – AAA)
• Outperforming all 10 of our largest industry peers identified by MSCI
• 2nd out of 83 companies in mining & metals category
• Environment and Social Scores in top 10% out of all industries
• Percentile rank of 91% in mining and metals industry
• Listed on FTSE4Good Index Series
10

Low Cost, Low Carbon Producer
• Well-positioned for a low-carbon
economy
• Among world’s lowest GHG
intensity for steelmaking coal and
copper production
• Fort Hills – one of the lowest
carbon intensities among North
American oil sands producers on
a wells-to-wheels basis1
• Carbon pricing already built into
majority of business
11
GHG Emissions Intensity Ranges Among
ICMM Members2 (kgCO2e per tonne of product)
Teck in bottom
quartile for
miners
Copper Coal

Teck has comprehensive systems and procedures in place
based on six pillars:
Full emergency preparedness plans are in place at relevant
facilities.
Management and emergency response aligned with Mining
Association of Canada Towards Sustainable Mining Protocols.
Dam Safety Inspection reports for Teck facilities available
online
1. Special review by external experts
- Confirmed no immediate or emerging
issues that could result in failure
- Confirmed Teck tailings management
practices industry leading
2. Supporting industry-wide improvements
- ICMM-UN-PRI global tailings standard
3. Enhanced transparency & disclosure
- Facilities inventory posted
- Detailed response to Church of England’s
tailings facility enquiry
12
Responsible Tailings Management
Further Tailings Governance Steps
1. Surveillance
Technology
2. Staff Inspections
3. Annual External
Inspections
4. Internal Review
5. Detailed Third-Party
Reviews
6. Independent Review
Boards

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
Strong Financial Position
• ~C$6.8 billion of liquidity1; including $1.6 billion in
cash, $1.0 billion in Chile for QB2 development
• US$4.0 billion committed revolving credit facility;
maturity extended to November 2024
• No significant note maturities until 2035
• Investment grade credit rating
• US$2.5 billion QB2 project finance facility closed
in Q4 2019; first borrowing not expected until
early 2020
• QB2 partnership and financing plan dramatically
reduces Teck’s capital requirements; Teck's share
of funding before escalation is ~US$700 million2,
with no contributions required until early 20213
13
Note Maturity Profile4 (C$M)
Notes outstanding reduced from
US$7.2 billion to US$3.2 billion

Capital Allocation Framework
14
1. For this purpose, we define available cash flow as cash flow from operating activities after interest and finance charges, lease payments and distributions to non-
controlling interests less: (i) sustaining capital and capitalized stripping; (ii) committed enhancement and growth capital; (iii) any cash required to adjust the capital
structure to maintain solid investment grade credit metrics; and (iv) our base $0.20 per share annual dividend. Proceeds from any asset sales may also be used to
supplement available cash flow. Any additional cash returns will be made through share repurchases and/or supplemental dividends depending on market
conditions at the relevant time.
BASE
DIVIDEND
COMMITTED
ENHANCEMENT
& GROWTH
CAPEX
CAPITAL
STRUCTURE
SUSTAINING
CAPEX
(including stripping)
SUPPLEMENTAL
SHAREHOLDER
DISTRIBUTIONS
Plus at Least 30%
Available Cash Flow1
The balance of remaining
cash is available to finance
further enhancement or
growth opportunities.
If there is no immediate need
for this capital for investment
purposes, it may be used for
further returns to
shareholders or retained as
cash on the balance sheet.

Supply Fundamentals Offsetting Weaker Demand
In Copper and Zinc
Copper Zinc
• Cathode market balanced for next 2 years
• Global macro concerns impacting demand
growth and prices
• Concentrate market tightness continues as
mine growth slows and new smelter capacity
increases in China
• Copper metal stocks continue to fall
• Mine growth to resume in 2021; peak in 2023
• Longer term mega-trends supportive of demand
• Global concentrate market in surplus;
constrained smelter production lifting
• Smelter bottleneck constrained refined
production in China now easing
• Metal inventories well below long term averages
• Trade tensions undermine zinc price
• Physical metal market showing signs of nearby
tightness following production issues
• High cost miners now under pressure and
closing from price and treatment charges
15

Steelmaking Coal Market
• Raw materials pricing under pressure due to
declining steel margins
• Growing demand, especially in India, Southeast
Asia and China
• Capital markets are rationing capital to coal, which
is directed at thermal coal but impacts steelmaking
coal; will constrain supply and increase the value
of existing assets
• Investment remains modest, permitting is
challenging
• Chinese safety checks restrict domestic production
• Teck’s steelmaking coal sales to India increased
from ~5% in 2013 to ~15% in 2018
‒ In the same period, our sales to China declined
from ~30% to ~10%
16
The steelmaking coal price has averaged
US$181 per tonne since January 1, 2008.
Steelmaking Coal Prices1 (US$/t)
50
100
150
200
250
300
Argus FOB Australia 12-Month Moving Average

Summary
17
Key Priorities
Focus on health and safety and sustainability leadership
Cost Reduction
Program
Neptune Facility
Upgrade
Growth Through
QB2/QB3 Execution
Transformation
Through Innovation:
RACE21TM

Notes
Slide 5: Key Priorities
1. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 6: Accelerating Our RACE21TM Innovation-Driven Efficiency Program
Slide 7: QB2 Value Creation
1. As at January 1, 2019. Assumes optimized funding structure. Does not include contingent consideration. Assumes US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver.
2. 1 truck = a strip ratio of 0.1.
3. Source: Wood Mackenzie over 2021-2040.
Slide 11: Low Cost, Low Carbon Producer
1. Source: IHS Energy Special Report “Comparing GHG Intensity of the Oil Sands and the Average US Crude Oil” May 2014. SCO stands for Synthetic Crude Oil.
2. Source: ICMM Report “The cost of carbon pricing: competitiveness implications for the mining and metals industry”, April 2013.
Slide 12: Responsible Tailings Management
1. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Standards. https://www.sasb.org/
Slide 13: Strong Financial Position
1. Liquidity is as at October 23, 2019.
2. On a go forward basis from January 1, 2019.
3. Assumes US$1.2 billion of Sumitomo contributions associated with purchase price spent before first draw of project finance facility. Thereafter, project finance facility used to fund all capital costs until target debt : capital ratio achieved on a
cumulative basis, after which point project finance and equity contributions are made ratably based on this same debt : capital ratio.
4. Public notes outstanding as at September 30, 2019.
Slide 16: Steelmaking Coal Market
1. Source: Argus, Teck. Plotted to November 20, 2019.
19

Quebrada Blanca
Photo: SAG Mill Number 1
Concrete and Rebar Placement

QB2 Project Disclosure
All economic analysis with respect to the QB2 project based on a development case which includes inferred resources within the life of mine plan,
referred to as the Sanction Case, which is the case on which Teck is basing its development decision for the QB2 project. Inferred resources are
considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral
reserves. Inferred resources are subject to greater uncertainty than measured or indicated resources and it cannot be assumed that they will be
successfully upgraded to measured and indicated through further drilling. Nonetheless, based on the nature of the mineralization, Teck has used a
mine plan including inferred resources as the development mine plan for the QB2 project.
The economic analysis of the Sanction Case, which includes inferred resources, may be compared to economic analysis regarding a hypothetical
mine plan which does not include the use of inferred resources as mill feed, referred to as the Reserve Case, and which is set out in Appendix slides
“QB2 Project Economics Comparison” and “QB2 Reserves and Resources Comparison” and is further discussed in our Annual Information Form filed
under our profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov).
The scientific and technical information regarding the QB2 project was prepared under the supervision of Rodrigo Marinho, P. Geo, who is an
employee of Teck. Mr. Marinho is a qualified person, as defined under National Instrument 43-101.
21

 Vast, long life deposit in favourable jurisdiction
 Very low strip ratio
 Low all-in sustaining costs (AISC)1
 Will be a top 20 producer
 High grade, clean concentrates
 Significant brownfield development
 Community agreements in place and strong local relationships
 Fully sanctioned and construction well underway
 Expansion potential (QB3) with potential to be a top 5 producer
Highlights
Chile
Peru
Bolivia
Tarapacá
Region
Arica y
Parinacota
Region
Antofagasta
Region
Arica
Iquique
QB2
Teck, SMM, SC, ENAMI
Collahuasi
Anglo American,
Glencore, Mitsui
El Abra
Freeport-McMoRan,
Codelco
Radomiro
Tomic
Codelco Chuquicamata
Codelco
Ministro
Hales
Codelco
Cerro
Colorado
BHP
Spence
BHP
Centinela
Antofagasta, Marubeni
Gabriela Mistral
Codelco
Escondida
BHP, Rio Tinto, Mitsubishi Argentina
Sierra Gorda
KGHM, SMM, SC
Location
QB2 Project
Executing on a world class development asset
22

QB2 Rebalances Teck’s Portfolio
Delivers on copper growth strategy
• Rebalances Teck's portfolio over time to make the
contribution from copper similar to steelmaking
coal
• On a consolidated basis copper production is
doubled
• On an attributable basis copper production
increases by ~60%
• Based on expected long term prices for copper
and steelmaking coal, increased copper
production could reduce steelmaking coal to below
50% of EBITDA over time
• QB3 and other copper development projects could
further increase copper exposure and
diversification
23
294
174
116
2018A Pro Forma
QB2 Consolidated
(100%)
QB2 Attrib. (60%)
Teck 2018A
2
Teck's Annual Copper Production (kt Cu)
290 kt2
1
2941
584

QB2 is a World Class Copper Opportunity
24
Project Metrics1
(100%)
US$2.4-$4.2B
After-Tax NPV8%
2,3
14%-18%
Unlevered After-Tax IRR2,3
US$1.1-$1.4B
First 5 Full Years Annual EBITDA2
316 kt
First 5 Full Years Annual CuEq Production4
US$1.28/lb
First 5 Full Years C1 Cash Cost (net of by-products)5
US$1.38/lb
First 5 Full Years AISC (net of by-products)6
QB2 Uses <25% of R&R
Continuing to Grow
US$4.7B
Capital Cost (100%)7
Transaction
Metrics1
~US$3B
Implied Value of Teck's 90% Ownership
Prior to Sumitomo Transaction8
30%-40%
Teck's Levered After-Tax IRR Post Transaction2,3,9

473228
236
1,782 683
2019E Pre
Close
2019E Post
Close
2020E 2021E 2022E
Teck Contribution Sumitomo Contribution Project Finance
Increasing Teck's Returns on QB2
Enhancing IRR Reducing Teck's Equity Contributions
25
Teck's Post Transaction After-Tax IRR1 (%)
19%
30%
21%
35%
24%
40%
Unlevered Levered
US$3 US$3.25 US$3.50
• Transaction with Sumitomo and US$2.5 billion
project financing significantly enhances Teck's
IRR
• Transaction proceeds and project financing
reduce Teck's equity contributions to ~US$693
million3 with no contributions required
post-closing until late 20204
QB2 Funding Profile Before Escalation2 (US$M)
Sumitomo
true-up post
closing
$138
$1,062
$2,052
$1,392
$95

QB2’s Competitive Cost Position
Competitive Operating Cost &
Capital Intensity Low Cash Cost Position
26
C1 Cash Cost3 & AISC4 Curve1 (US$/lb, 2023E)• Given the exceptionally low strip ratio, consistent grade
profile, compact site layout, and high level of automation,
QB2 is expected to have attractive and relatively stable
operating costs
• Exceptional strip ratio of 0.70 LOM, meaning for every one
tonne of ore mined, only 0.70 tonnes of waste need to be
mined (0.44 over first 5 full years)
− Compares to other world class asset strip ratios of 3.5
for Antamina, 3.1 for Collahuasi, and 2.5 for Escondida1
− Major benefit to sustaining capital since it reduces
mobile fleet size and replacement costs
• Capital intensity of ~US$15k/tpa copper equivalent is in line
or lower than recent comparably sized projects with the
ability to amortize these costs over a very long mine life2
Antamina
Escondida
Collahuasi
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
- 25% 50% 75% 100%
US$/lb
Cumulative Paid Metal (%)
AISC C1 Cash Cost
QB2
(first 5 full years)
US$1.38/lb
QB2
(first 5 full years)
US$1.28/lb

Vast, Long Life Deposit at QB
QB2 Uses Less than 25% of R&R Extension Potential
• Resource exclusive of Reserve increased 40% since
2017
• Initial 28 year mine life processes <25% of the currently
defined Reserve and Resource Tonnage
• Deposit is capable of supporting a very long mine life
based on throughput rate of 143 ktpd by utilizing further
tailings capacity at already identified sites
• Actively evaluating potential options to exploit value of
full resource through mill expansion and / or mine life
extension
• Beyond the extensive upside included in the defined QB
deposit, the district geology is highly prospective for
exploration discovery and resource addition
− Mineralization is open in multiple directions with
drilling ongoing
27.
1,202 1,259 1,202
1,325 1,472
199
2,141
3,393
Sanction Case
Mine Plan
Tonnage
2017 Annual
Information Form
2018 Updated
Resource
Tonnage
Inferred
M&I (Exclusive)
P&P
1
+40%
Reserve and Resource Tonnage (Mt)
<25% of current
Reserve and
Resource
Tonnage

QB3 – Long-Term Growth
Expansion potential to realize full potential of the orebody
• QB2 utilizes less than 25% of resource
• QB3 evaluating options to exploit the full value of the
resource through mill expansion and / or mine life extension
• Ongoing work includes:
− ~18 km of drilling in 2018
− 60 km of drilling planned for 2019
− Scoping Study underway to be followed by a
Prefeasibility Study
28.
• 2018 drilling returned long intervals of +0.5% Cu, with
predictable sulfide zonation patterns
Key Valuation Drivers
• Defining the full size of the deposit through drilling
• Proactive evaluation of long-term options for production
• Maximizing the performance of the QB2 plant
• Leveraging the QB2 infrastructure to target production
increases at a lower capital intensity
Copper Mineralization from 2018 Drilling1

Clear Path to Production at QB2
Construction Approach Operational Readiness
• Key project elements are segregated by area and can be managed more
efficiently reducing risk:
– Open pit mine (120 Mtpa peak);
– Concentrator (143 ktpd);
– Tailings storage facility (1.4 Bt capacity);
– Concentrate and water supply pipelines (165 km); and
– Port facility (including a desalination plant and concentrate filtration plant)
• QB will own and operate its pipelines and port facilities
29
• Early focus on operational readiness and commissioning to ensure a
seamless transition to operations
• Organizational design incorporating Integrated Operations and Business
Partner Model
– Driving value by linking process, people and workplace design
• Engagement of experienced consultants to support detailed plan
development and execution, integrated operations design and systems,
and commissioning planning
Port and Desalination
Power
Pipelines
TMF
Mill Mine
Water Pipeline Concentrate Pipeline Power Line Roads

Execution Readiness at QB2
Experienced project team including Bechtel, a leading EPCM company
30
Name Title Years of Experience Major Project Experience
Karl Hroza Project Director 25+ Sturgeon Refinery, El Morro, Koniambo, Fort Hills, Ravensthorpe
Sergio Vives Director, Environment and Permitting 20+ Pascua Lama, Los Pelambres, Chuquicamata and Codelco Smelting
Grant McLaren Site Manager 35+ Escondida (Phase IV, North satellite), Cerrejon P40 Expansion, Olympic Dam
Carlos Opazo Concentrator Manager 25+
Fort Hills, Carmen de Andacollo, Los Pelambres, El Abra, Escondida, Chuquicamata, CAP Iron Ore, MCC,
Millennium Coker Unit – U and O
Francisco Raynaud Port Area Manager 25+ Escondida, To-2 – Codelco
Andrés Corbalan Engineering Manager 25+ El Abra, Los Pelambres
Dale Webb Operations Readiness General Manager 20+ QB1, Trail Operations
Name Title Years of Experience Major Project Experience
Jim McCloud Project Manager 25+ El Abra, Radomiro Tomic, Collahuasi, Escondida (EWS), Los Pelambres, Yanacocha, Antamina, Antapaccay
Carlos Ruiz Deputy Project Manager 25+ Escondida (EWS, OGP1, OLAP, Laguna Seca Debottlenecking), Los Bronces
Sergio Baldini Senior Site Manager 20+ Escondida (EWS, OGP1), Antapaccay
Eduardo Rochna Project Controls Manager 18+ Los Pelambres Repower I and II projects, Antapaccay
Jorge Kettlun Contracts Manager 25+ Escondida (EWS, OGP1), Los Bronces, Los Pelambres Repower II projects
Edgar Gomez Engineering Manager 25+
Escondida (OGP1), Andina Development Project (PDA) Phase I, Codelco PTMP,
Los Pelambres Repower I, Collahuasi Ujina Rosario, Antamina, Goro Nickel
Teck Owner's Team
Bechtel Management Team

QB2 Project Economics Comparison
31
Mine Life years 25 28 28
Throughput ktpd 140 143 143
LOM Mill Feed Mt 1,259 1,400 1,400
Strip Ratio
First 5 Full Years 0.40 0.16 0.44
LOM 0.52 0.41 0.70
Copper Production
First 5 Full Years ktpa 275 286 290
LOM ktpa 238 228 247
Copper Equivalent Production
First 5 Full Years ktpa 301 313 316
LOM ktpa 262 256 279
C1 Cash Cost
First 5 Full Years US$/lb $1.28 $1.29 $1.28
LOM US$/lb $1.39 $1.47 $1.37
AISC
First 5 Full Years US$/lb $1.34 $1.40 $1.38
LOM US$/lb $1.43 $1.53 $1.42
Annual EBITDA
First 5 Full Years US$B $1.0 $1.0 $1.1
LOM US$B $0.8 $0.7 $0.9
NPV @ 8% US$B $1.3 $2.0 $2.4
IRR % 12% 13% 14%
Payback Period years 5.8 5.7 5.6
Mine Life / Payback 4.3 4.9 5.0
Sanction
Case
Reserve
Case
2016 FS
(Reserves)
After-Tax
Economics
General
OperatingMetrics
(AnnualAvg.)
4
6
5
2
2
2
2
2
7 8
3
2
11
Sensitivity Analysis1Changes Since Feasibility Study1
RESERVE CASE8 US$3.00 US$3.25 US$3.50
Annual EBITDA11 (US$B)
First 5 Full Years $1.0 $1.2 $1.3
Payback Period (Years)6 5.7 5.0 4.4
NPV at 8% (US$B) $2.0 $2.9 $3.7
Project Unlevered IRR (%) 13% 16% 17%
Teck’s Unlevered IRR (%)9 18% 21% 23%
Teck’s Levered IRR (%)10 29% 35% 40%
SANCTION CASE8 US$3.00 US$3.25 US$3.50
Annual EBITDA11 (US$B)
Payback Period (Years)6 5.6 4.9 4.4
NPV at 8% (US$B) $2.4 $3.3 $4.2
Project Unlevered IRR (%) 14% 16% 18%
Teck’s Unlevered IRR (%)9 19% 21% 24%
Teck’s Levered IRR (%)10 30% 35% 40%

QB2 Reserves and Resources Comparison
Reserve Case (as at Nov. 30, 2018)1,2 Sanction Case (as at Nov. 30, 2018)2,4
32
RESERVES Mt Cu
Grade %
Mo
Grade %
Silver
Grade
ppm
Proven 409 0.54 0.019 1.47
Probable 793 0.51 0.021 1.34
Reserves 1,202 0.52 0.020 1.38
RESOURCES
(EXCLUSIVE OF
RESERVES)5
Mt Cu
Grade %
Mo
Grade %
Silver
Grade
ppm
Measured 36 0.42 0.014 1.23
Indicated 1,436 0.40 0.016 1.13
M&I (Exclusive) 1,472 0.40 0.016 1.14
Inferred 3,194 0.37 0.017 1.13
+ Inferred in SC pit 199 0.53 0.022 1.21
RESERVES Mt Cu
Grade %
Mo
Grade %
Silver
Grade
ppm
Proven 476 0.51 0.018 1.40
Probable 924 0.47 0.019 1.25
Reserves 1,400 0.48 0.018 1.30
RESOURCES
(EXCLUSIVE OF
RESERVES)3
Mt Cu
Grade %
Mo
Grade %
Silver
Grade
ppm
Measured 36 0.42 0.014 1.23
Indicated 1,558 0.40 0.016 1.14
M&I (Exclusive) 1,594 0.40 0.016 1.14
Inferred 3,125 0.38 0.018 1.15

ENAMI Interest in QB
Organizational Chart
• The government of Chile owns a 10% non-funding
interest in Compañía Minera Teck Quebrada Blanca
S.A. (CMTQB) through its state-run minerals company,
Empresa Nacional de Minería (ENAMI)
• ENAMI has been a partner at QB since 1989 and is a
10% shareholder of Carmen de Andacollo
• ENAMI is not required to fund QB2 development costs
• Project equity funding in form of:
- 25% Series A Shares
- 75% Shareholder Loans
• Until shareholder loans are fully repaid, ENAMI is
entitled to a minimum dividend, based on net income,
that approximates 2.0-2.5% of free cash flow
- Thereafter, ENAMI receives 10% of dividends / free
cash flow
• ENAMI is entitled to board representation
33.
CMTQB
TRCL
ENAMI
Teck
10%
(Series B)
100%
90%
(Series A)
JVCo
SMM
66.67%
100%
33.33%
SC
83.33% 16.67%
Chile HoldCo
QB1 / QB2 / QB3

Quebrada Blanca Accounting Treatment
Balance Sheet Cash Flow
• 100% of project spending included in property, plant and
equipment
• Debt includes 100% of project financing
• Total shareholder funding to be split between loans and
equity approximately 75%/25% over the life of the project
• Sumitomo (SMM/SC)1 contributions will be shown as
advances as a non-current liability and non-controlling
interest as part of equity
• Teck contributions, whether debt or equity eliminated on
consolidation
• 100% of project spending included in capital
expenditures
• In 2019, Sumitomo1 contribution will recorded within
financing activities and split approximately 50%/50% as:
‒ Loans recorded as “Advances from Sumitomo”
‒ Equity recorded as “Sumitomo Share
Subscriptions”
• 100% of draws on project financing included in financing
activities
• After start-up of operations
‒ 100% of profit in cash flow from operations
‒ Sumitomo’s1 30% and ENAMI’s 10% share of
distributions included in non-controlling interest
34
Income Statement
• Teck’s income statement will include 100% of QB’s
revenues and expenses
• Sumitomo’s1 30% and ENAMI’s 10% share of profit will
show as profit attributable to non-controlling interests

Notes - Appendix: Quebrada Blanca
Slide 22: QB2 Project
1. All-in sustaining costs (AISC) are net cash unit costs (also known as C1 cash costs) plus sustaining capital expenditures. Net cash unit costs are calculated after cash margin by-product credits assuming US$10.00/lb molybdenum and
US$18.00/oz silver. Net cash unit costs for QB2 include stripping costs during operations. AISC, Net cash unit cost and cash margins for by-products are non-GAAP financial measures which do not have a standardized meanings prescribed by
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States. These measures may differ from those used by other issuers and may not be comparable to such measures as reported by
others. These measures are meant to provide further information about our financial expectations to investors. These measures should not be considered in isolation or used in substitute for other measures of performance prepared in
accordance with IFRS. For more information on our calculation of non-GAAP financial measures please see our Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2018, which can be found under our profile on SEDAR
at www.sedar.com.
Slide 23: QB2 Rebalances Teck’s Portfolio
1. We include 100% of the production and sales from QB and Carmen de Andacollo mines in our production and sales volumes because we fully consolidate their results in our financial statements. We include 22.5% of production and sales from
Antamina, representing our proportionate equity interest in Antamina. Copper production includes cathode production at QB.
2. Based on QB2 Sanction Case first five full years of copper production.
Slide 24: QB2 is a World Class Copper Opportunity
US$18.00/oz silver. Net cash unit costs for QB2 include stripping costs during operations. AISC, Net cash unit cost and cash margins for by-products are non-GAAP financial measures. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
2. Range based on US$3.00-$3.50/lb copper price. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
3. As at January 1, 2019. Assumes optimized funding structure.
4. Copper equivalent production calculated assuming US$3.00/lb copper, US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver without adjusting for payability.
5. C1 cash costs (also known as net cash unit costs) are presented after by-product credits assuming US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver. C1 cash costs for QB2 include stripping costs during operations. Net cash unit costs and C1
cash costs are non-GAAP financial measures. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
7. The valuation of approximately ~US$3 billion for Teck’s 90% interest prior to the Sumitomo transaction is based on a transaction value of US$1 billion comprising an earn-in contribution of US$800 million and assumed contingent consideration
proceeds with a present value of approximately US$200 million. The undiscounted contingent consideration is estimated at US$300 million and comprises: (a) US$50 million relating to achieving the mill throughput optimization target, assumed
to be received in 2024; and (b) 8% of the net present value of the QB3 expansion at sanction, assuming an expansion sanctioned in 2024 which doubles QB2 throughput with further tailings facility construction deferred. At a real copper price of
US$3.00/lb, the payment is estimated at approximately US$250 million. Using a real discount rate of 8%, the present value of the contingent consideration, based on the above assumptions is estimated at approximately US$200 million. This
estimate is based on a number of significant assumptions in addition to those described above. There can be no assurance that the contingent consideration will approximate the amounts outlined above, or that it will be received at all.
8. Does not include contingent consideration.
9. Assumes US$2.5 billion in project finance loans without deduction of fees and interest during construction, and US$1.2 billion contribution from Sumitomo. Does not include contingent consideration.
Slide 25: Increasing Teck's Returns on QB2
1. As at January 1, 2019. Assumes optimized funding structure. Does not include contingent consideration. Assumes US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver.
2. On a 100% go forward basis from January 1, 2019 in constant Q2 2017 dollars and a CLP:USD exchange rate of 625, not including escalation (estimated at US$300 - $470 million based on 2 - 3% per annum inflation), working capital or interest
during construction. Includes approximately US$500 million in contingency. At a spot CLP/USD rate of approximately 675 capital would be reduced by approximately US$270 million.
3. On a go forward basis from January 1, 2019.
4. Assumes US$1.2 billion of Sumitomo contributions associated with purchase price spent before first draw of project finance facility. Thereafter, project finance facility used to fund all capital costs until target debt : capital ratio achieved on a
cumulative basis, after which point project finance and equity contributions are made ratably based on this same debt : capital ratio.
35

Notes - Appendix: Quebrada Blanca
Slide 26: QB2’s Competitive Cost Position
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie.
2. Based on first five full years of copper equivalent production. Copper equivalent production calculated assuming US$3.00/lb copper, US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver without adjusting for payability.
3. C1 cash costs (also known as net cash unit costs) are presented after by-product credits assuming US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver. C1 cash costs for QB2 include stripping costs during operations. Net cash unit costs and C1
cash costs are non-GAAP financial measures. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 27: Vast, Long Life Deposit at QB
1. Resources figures as at November 30, 2018. Resources are reported separately from, and do not include that portion of resources classified as reserves. See “QB2 Reserves and Resources Comparison” slide for further details.
Slide 28: QB3 – Long-Term Growth
1. DDH-756 @176.6m, Field of view 2cm.
Slide 31: QB2 Project Economics Comparison
1. All metrics on 100% basis and assume US$3.00/lb copper, US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver unless otherwise stated. NPV, IRR and payback on after-tax basis.
2. Life of Mine annual average figures exclude the first and last partial years of operations.
3. Copper equivalent production calculated assuming US$3.00/lb copper, US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver without adjusting for payability.
4. C1 cash costs are presented after by-product credits assuming US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver. Net cash unit costs are consistent with C1 cash costs. C1 cash costs for QB2 include stripping costs during operations. Net cash
unit costs and C1 cash costs are non-GAAP financial measures. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
6. Payback from first production.
7. Based on go-forward cash flow from January 1, 2017. Based on all equity funding structure.
8. Based on go-forward cash flow from January 1, 2019. Based on optimized funding structure.
9. Does not consider contingent consideration.
10. Includes impact of US$2.5 billion project financing. Does not consider contingent consideration.
Slide 32: QB2 Reserves and Resources Comparison
1. Mineral reserves are constrained within an optimized pit shell and scheduled using a variable grade cut-off approach based on NSR cut-off US$13.39/t over the planned life of mine. The life-of-mine strip ratio is 0.41.
2. Both mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates assume long-term commodity prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$9.40/lb Mo and US$18.00/oz Ag and other assumptions that include: pit slope angles of 30–44º, variable metallurgical recoveries
that average approximately 91% for Cu and 74% for Mo and operational costs supported by the Feasibility Study as revised and updated.
3. Mineral resources are reported using a NSR cut-off of US$11.00/t and include 23.8 million tonnes of hypogene material grading 0.54% copper that has been mined and stockpiled during existing supergene operations.
4. Mineral reserves are constrained within an optimized pit shell and scheduled using a variable grade cut-off approach based on NSR cut-off US$18.95/t over the planned life of mine. The life-of-mine strip ratio is 0.70.
5. Mineral resources are reported using a NSR cut-off of US$11.00/t outside of the reserves pit. Mineral resources include inferred resources within the reserves pit at a US$ 18.95/t NSR cut-off and also include 23.8 million tonnes of hypogene
material grading 0.54% copper that has been mined and stockpiled during existing supergene operations.
Slide 34: Quebrada Blanca Accounting Treatment
1. Sumitomo Metal Mining Co. Ltd. and Sumitomo Corporation are collectively referred to as Sumitomo.
36

Consistent Long-Term Strategy
38
• Diversification
• Long life assets
• Low cost
• Appropriate scale
• Low risk jurisdictions

Attractive Portfolio of Long-Life Assets
Low risk jurisdictions
39

Global Customer Base
Revenue contribution from diverse markets (2018)
40
1

Diverse Pipeline of Growth Options
41
In Construction
Energy
Building a new business
through partnership
Frontier
Lease 421
Future OptionsMedium-Term
Growth Options
Zinc
Premier resource with
integrated assets
Red Dog
Satellite Deposits
Cirque
Red Dog VIP2 Project Teena
Coal
Well established with capital
efficient value options
Elk Valley Replacement
Brownfield
Quintette/Mt. Duke
Elk Valley Brownfield
Neptune Terminals
Expansion
Coal Mountain 2
Copper
Strong platform
with substantial
growth options
San Nicolás (Cu-Zn)
QB2
Zafranal
Mesaba
NuevaUnión
HVC Brownfield
Schaft Creek
Antamina Brownfield
Galore Creek
Fort Hills Debottlenecking &
Expansion
QB3

Disciplined Approach to M&A
42
CdA Gold
Stream1,
$206M Project Corridor
/Nueva Union,
$0
Antamina
Silver Stream2
$795M
Osisko
Royalty
Package,
$28M
Sandstorm
Royalty
Package3
$32M
HVC Minority,
($33M)
Teena
Minority4,
($11M)
AQM
Copper,
($25M)
Wintering Hills,
$59M
San Nic
Minority5,
($65M)
IMSA’s stake
in QB, ($208M)
Waneta Dam,
$1,200M6
QB2 Divestment
(30%)7
$1,072M
($500)
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
July10
Aug27
Oct7
Oct25
Jan19
July5
Oct18
Nov21
Jan26
Oct18
Apr4
Jul26
Mar29
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total net proceeds of C$3.1B:
• Balance sheet strengthened by divestment of non-core assets at high EBITDA multiples8
• Modest ‘prudent housekeeping’ acquisitions to consolidate control of attractive copper and
zinc development assets
• Innovative NuevaUnión joint venture to create world scale development opportunity
Recent Transaction History
NetProceeds(Cost)(C$M)

Production Guidance
43
2018 RESULTS 2019 GUIDANCE1
3-YEAR GUIDANCE1
(2020-2022)
Steelmaking Coal 26.2 Mt 25.5-26.0 Mt 26.5-27.5 Mt
Copper2,3,4,6
Highland Valley Concentrate 100.8 kt 115-120 kt 135-155 kt
Antamina Concentrate 100.4 kt 95-100 kt 90-95 kt
Carmen de Andecollo Concentrate + Cathode 67.2 kt 62-67 kt 60 kt
Quebrada Blanca Cathode 25.5 kt 20-23 kt -
Total Copper Concentrate + Cathode 293.9 kt 290-310 kt 285-305 kt
Zinc2,3,5
Red Dog Concentrate 583.2 kt 535-560 kt 500-520 kt
Antamina Concentrate 92.1 kt 65-70 kt 100-110 kt
Pend Oreille Concentrate 29.7 kt 19 kt -
Total Zinc Concentrate 705 kt 620-650 kt 600-630 kt
Refined Zinc - Trail Refined 302.9 kt 275-285 kt 310-315 kt
Bitumen - Fort Hills3,7,8
6.8 Mbbl 12-14 Mbbl 14 Mbbl
Lead - Red Dog2
Concentrate 98.4 kt 90-95 kt 85-100 kt
Refined Lead - Trail Refined 61 kt 70-75 kt 85-95 kt
Molybdenum2,3
Highland Valley Concentrate 8.7 Mlbs 8.0 Mlbs 4.0-5.0 Mlbs
Antamina Concentrate 2.3 Mlbs 1.5 Mlbs 2.0-3.0 Mlbs
Total Molybdenum Concentrate 11.0 Mlbs 9.5 Mlbs 6.0-8.0 Mlbs
Refined Silver - Trail Refined 11.6 Moz 13-14 Moz N/A-

Sales and Unit Cost Guidance
44
2018 RESULTS 2019 GUIDANCE1
Steelmaking Coal
Adjusted site cost of sales2
C$62/t C$62-65/t
Transportation costs2
C$37/t C$37-39/t
Unit costs2
C$99/t C$99-104/t
Copper
Total cash unit costs3
US$1.74/lb US$1.70-1.80/lb
Net cash unit costs3
US$1.23/lb US$1.40-1.50/lb
Zinc
Total cash unit costs4
US$0.49/lb US$0.50-0.55/lb
Net cash unit costs4
US$0.31/lb US$0.30-0.35/lb
Bitumen
Adjusted operating costs5
C$32.89/bbl C$26-29/bbl
Unit Costs
Sales
Q3 2019 RESULTS Q4 2019 GUIDANCE1
Steelmaking Coal 6.1 Mt 6.2-6.4 Mt
Zinc - Red Dog Zinc in Concentrate 171 kt 160-165 kt

Capital Expenditures Guidance
45
(TECK’S SHARE
IN CAD$ MILLIONS) 2018
2019
GUIDANCE1
QB2 Capital Expenditures $ 414 $ 1,450
Total capex, before SMM/SC contribution $ 1,906 $ 3,040
Estimated SMM/SC contributions4 - (1,265)
Total Teck spend $ 1,906 $ 1,775
Quebrada Blanca 2
(TECK’S SHARE
2019
GUIDANCE1
Sustaining
Steelmaking coal2 $ 232 $ 455
Copper 157 180
Zinc 225 145
Energy 21 55
Corporate 10 10
$ 645 $ 845
Major Enhancement
Copper 62 45
Zinc 107 75
Energy 69 100
$ 468 $ 595
New Mine Development
Copper3 $ 56 $ 90
Zinc 38 25
Energy 285 35
$ 379 $ 150
Sub-total
Copper3 275 315
Zinc 370 245
Energy 375 190
Corporate 10 10
$ 1,492 $ 1,590
(TECK’S SHARE
2019
GUIDANCE1
Capitalized Stripping
Steelmaking coal $ 507 $ 445
Copper 161 175
Zinc 39 45
$ 707 $ 665
Capitalized Stripping
Sustaining, Major Enhancement, New Mine Development

Commodity Price Leverage1
46
MID-POINT OF
2019 PRODUCTION
GUIDANCE2 CHANGE
ESTIMATED EFFECT ON
ANNUALIZED PROFIT3
ESTIMATED EFFECT ON
ANNUALIZED EBITDA3
$C/$US C$0.01 C$38M /$0.01∆ C$60M /$0.01∆
Coal 25.75 Mt US$1/tonne C$19M /$1∆ C$30M /$1∆
Copper 300 kt US$0.01/lb C$5M /$0.01∆ C$8M /$0.01∆
Zinc4 915 kt US$0.01/lb C$10M /$0.01∆ C$13M /$0.01∆
WCS5 13 Mbbl US$1/bbl C$12M /$1∆ C$17M /$1∆
WTI6 - US$1/bbl C$9M /$1∆ C$12M /$1∆

Strong Track Record of Returning Cash to Shareholders
~$6.3 billion returned from January 1, 2003 to September 30, 2019
47
Dividends
• $4.3 billion since 2003,
representing ~27% of
free cash flow1
Share Buybacks
• $2.0 billion since 2003,
representing ~12% of
free cash flow1

Tax-Efficient Earnings in Canada
~C$3.8 billion in available tax pools1
• Includes:
‒ $2.9 billion in net operating loss carryforwards
‒ $0.7 billion in Canadian Development Expenses (30% declining balance p.a.)
‒ $0.2 billion in allowable capital loss carryforwards
• Applies to cash income taxes in Canada
• Does not apply to:
‒ Resource taxes in Canada
‒ Cash taxes in foreign jurisdictions
48

Share Structure & Principal Shareholders
49
SHARES HELD PERCENT
VOTING
RIGHTS
Class A Shareholdings
Temagami Mining Company Limited 4,300,000 55.4% 32.1%
SMM Resources Inc (Sumitomo) 1,469,000 18.9% 11.0%
Other 1,999,304 25.7% 14.9%
7,768,304 100.0% 58.0%
Class B Shareholdings
Temagami Mining Company Limited 725,000 0.1% 0.1%
SMM Resources Inc (Sumitomo) 295,800 0.1% 0.0%
China Investment Corporation (Fullbloom) 59,304,474 10.5% 4.4%
Other 501,972,680 89.3% 37.5%
562,297,954 100.0% 42.0%
Total Shareholdings
Temagami Mining Company Limited 5,025,000 0.9% 32.2%
SMM Resources Inc (Sumitomo) 1,764,800 0.3% 11.0%
China Investment Corporation (Fullbloom) 59,304,474 10.4% 4.4%
Other 503,971,984 88.4% 52.4%
570,066,258 100.0% 100.0%
Teck Resources Limited1

Notes: Appendix – Strategy and Overview
Slide 40: Global Customer Base
1. Gross profit before depreciation and amortization is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 42: Disciplined Approach to M&A
1. Carmen de Andacollo gold stream transaction occurred in USD at US$162 million.
2. Antamina silver stream transaction occurred in USD at US$610 million.
3. Sandstorm royalty transaction occurred in USD at US$22 million.
4. Teena transaction occurred in AUD at A$10.6 million.
5. San Nicolàs transaction occurred in USD at US$50 million.
6. Waneta Dam transaction closed July 26, 2018 for C$1.2 billion.
7. QB2 Partnership (sale of 30% interest of project to Sumitomo; SMM and SC) for total consideration of US$1.2 billion, including US$800 million earn-in and US$400 million matching contribution; converted at FX of 1.34 on March 29, 2019
Slide 43: Production Guidance
1. As at October 23, 2019. See Teck’s Q3 2019 press release.
2. Metal contained in concentrate.
3. We include 100% of production and sales from our Quebrada Blanca and Carmen de Andacollo mines in our production and sales volumes because we fully consolidate their results in our financial statements. We include 22.5% and 21.3% of
production and sales from Antamina and Fort Hills, respectively, representing our proportionate ownership interest in these operations.
4. Copper production includes cathode production at Quebrada Blanca and Carmen de Andacollo.
5. Total zinc includes co-product zinc production from our copper business unit.
6. Excludes production from QB2 for three-year guidance 2020–2022.
7. Production results are included from June 1, 2018.
8. The 2020–2022 bitumen production guidance does not include potential near-term debottlenecking opportunities. See energy business unit in quarterly press releases for more information.
Slide 44: Sales and Unit Cost Guidance
2. Steelmaking coal unit costs are reported in Canadian dollars per tonne. Adjusted site cost of sales includes site costs, transport costs, and other and does not include deferred stripping or capital expenditures. Adjusted site cost of sales is a
non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
3. Copper unit costs are reported in U.S. dollars per payable pound of metal contained in concentrate. Total cash unit costs are before co-product and by-product margins. Copper net cash unit costs are after by-product margins and include
adjusted cash cost of sales, smelter processing charges and cash margin for by-products including co-products. Assumes a zinc price of US$1.15 per pound, a molybdenum price of US$12 per pound, a silver price of US$16.00 per ounce, a
gold price of US$1,350 per ounce and a Canadian/U.S. dollar exchange rate of $1.32. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
4. Zinc unit costs are reported in U.S. dollars per payable pound of metal contained in concentrate. Total cash unit costs are before co-product and by-product margins. Zinc net cash unit costs are after by-product margins and are mine costs
including adjusted cash cost of sales, smelter processing charges and cash margin for by-products. Assumes a lead price of US$0.90 per pound, a silver price of US$16.00 per ounce and a Canadian/U.S. dollar exchange rate of $1.32. By-
products include both by-products and co-products. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
5. Bitumen unit costs are reported in Canadian dollars per barrel. Adjusted operating costs represent costs for the Fort Hills mining and processing operations and do not include the cost of diluent, transportation, storage and blending. See “Non-
GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 45: Capital Expenditures Guidance
2. For steelmaking coal, sustaining capital includes Teck’s share of water treatment charges of $57 million in 2018. Sustaining capital guidance includes Teck’s share of water treatment charges related to the Elk Valley Water Quality Plan, which
are approximately $175 million in 2019. Major enhancement capital guidance includes $210 million relating to the facility upgrade at Neptune Bulk Terminals that will be funded by Teck.
3. For copper, new mine development guidance for 2019 includes early scoping studies for QB3, Zafranal, San Nicolás and Galore Creek.
4. Total SMM and SC contributions were $1.7 billion. The difference will be in cash at December 31, 2019.
50

Notes: Appendix – Strategy and Overview
Slide 46: Commodity Price Leverage
1. As at October 23, 2019. Before pricing adjustments, based on our current balance sheet, our expected 2019 mid-range production estimates, current commodity prices and a Canadian/U.S. dollar exchange rate of $1.32. See Teck’s Q3 2019
press release.
2. All production estimates are subject to change based on market and operating conditions.
3. The effect on our profit attributable to shareholders and on EBITDA of commodity price and exchange rate movements will vary from quarter to quarter depending on sales volumes. Our estimate of the sensitivity of profit and EBITDA to changes
in the U.S. dollar exchange rate is sensitive to commodity price assumptions. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
4. Zinc includes 280,000 tonnes of refined zinc and 635,000 tonnes of zinc contained in concentrate.
5. Bitumen volumes from our energy business unit.
6. Our WTI oil price sensitivity takes into account our interest in Fort Hills for respective change in revenue, partially offset by the effect of the change in diluent purchase costs as well as the effect on the change in operating costs across our
business units, as our operations use a significant amount of diesel fuel.
Slide 47: Strong Track Record of Returning Cash to Shareholders
1. From January 1, 2003 to September 30, 2019. Free cash flow is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 48: Tax-Efficient Earnings In Canada
1. As at December 31, 2018.
Slide 49: Share Structure & Principal Shareholders
1. As at December 31, 2018.
51

Sustainability Strategy
• Strong sustainability performance
enabled by a strategy built around
developing opportunities and
managing risks
• Implementing a sustainability
strategy with short-term, five-year
goals and long-term goals stretching
out to 2030
Goals cover the six areas of focus representing the most significant
sustainability issues and opportunities facing our company
53
Community Water Our People
Biodiversity Energy and
Climate Change
Air

Why Sustainability Matters
54
• Increased access to capital at a lower cost
• Increased cost savings and productivity
• Higher financial returns
• Brand value and reputation
• Reduced risk of operations disruption
• Efficient project and permit approvals
• Meet rising supply chain and societal expectations
• Employee retention and recruitment
Driving Growth and Managing Risk

Health and Safety Performance
• Safety performance in 2018
- 28% reduction in High-Potential
Incidents
- 21% decrease in Lost-Time Injury
Frequency
• Conducted Courageous Safety
Leadership training with 97% of
employees
• Two fatalities in 2018: one at Fording
River Operations and one at Elkview
Operations. Carried out in-depth
investigations into the incidents to learn
as much as possible and implement
measures to prevent a reoccurrence
55
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2015 2016 2017 2018
High-Potential Incident Frequency
Serious High-Potential Incident Frequency
Potentially Fatal Occurrence Frequency
Incident Frequency (per 200,000 hours worked)
62% reduction in High-Potential Incident
Frequency rate over past four years

Reducing Freshwater Use
Teck top of 50+ companies ranked by DJSI
• Water recycled average of 3
times at mining operations in
2018
• Target to reduce freshwater
use at Chilean operations by
15% by 2020
• Desalinated seawater for
Quebrada Blanca 2 project in
place of freshwater; 26.5
million m3 per year
56
Related SASB1 Metric: EM-MM-140a.1 | Link to Data
DJSI Water Related Risk Assessment
2019 Percentile Rankings2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
percentilerankings:
lowesttohighestscores
Teck
(100th percentile)

Taking Action on Climate Change
Teck in top 3 of 50+ companies ranked by DJSI
• Goal to reduce GHG emissions by
450,000 tonnes by 2030 and have
already reduced 289,000 tonnes of
emissions as a result of projects
implemented since 2011
• Advocating for climate action – member
of Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition
• Releasing second Climate Action and
Portfolio Resilience report in 2019, which
is structured to align with the
recommendations from the Task Force on
Climate Related Financial Disclosure
57
DJSI Climate Strategy Assessment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
percentilerankings:
Teck
(98th percentile)

Lower-Risk Jurisdictions, Comprehensive Assessments
Teck in top 3 of 50+ companies ranked by DJSI
• All operations in countries with
well-developed mining industries:
Canada, United States, Chile, Peru
• Robust regulatory regimes and rule of law
in place
• Strong foundation for protection of human
rights
• Human rights assessments conducted at
all operations in 2018
58
Related SASB1 Metric: EM-MM-210b.1 | Link to Data
Teck
(97th percentile)
DJSI Human Rights Assessment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
percentilerankings:

• Agreements in place at all mining
operations within or adjacent to
Indigenous Peoples’ territories
• Achieved agreements with all Indigenous
communities near the QB2 project
‒ 8 of 8 agreements with Indigenous
communities
‒ 7 of 7 agreements with fishermen’s
unions
• Achieved agreements with 14 out of 14
potentially affected Indigenous groups
near our Frontier project
• Working with UN Women in Chile to
advance economic opportunities for
Indigenous women
59
Strengthening Relationships with Indigenous Peoples

• 57% of our employees are
unionized
• Focused on strengthening diversity,
with women making up 26% of new
hires in 2018
• In 2018, 9% of total hires self-
identified as Indigenous from our
Red Dog, Highland Valley Copper
and steelmaking coal operations in
the Elk Valley
60
Employee Relations and Diversity
18%
women in our
workforce
29%
Board of
Directors are
women
Related SASB1 Metrics: EM-MM-310a.1 | Link to Data
20%
management
positions held
by women

Collective Agreements
OPERATION EXPIRY DATES
Quebrada Blanca
November 30, 2019
January 31, 2022
March 31, 2022
Line Creek May 31, 2019
Carmen de Andacollo
September 30, 2019
December 31, 2019
Elkview October 31, 2020
Fording River April 30, 2021
Antamina July 31, 2021
Highland Valley Copper September 30, 2021
Trail Operations May 31, 2022
Cardinal River June 30, 2022
61

Notes: Sustainability
Slide 56: Reducing Freshwater Use
2. SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2018.
Slide 57: Taking Action on Climate Change
Slide 58: Lower-Risk Jurisdictions, Comprehensive Assessments
Slide 59: Strengthening Relationships with Indigenous Peoples
Slide 60: Employee Relations and Diversity
62

Teck is Actively Pursuing a Transformation
Of Our Business Through Technology
64
RENEW
Modernize Teck’s
technology
foundation
AUTOMATE
Accelerate and
scale autonomy
program
CONNECT
Develop
digital platform
for sensing and
analytics
EMPOWER
Design future
operating model
to empower our
employees
RACE21TM

RACE21TM
65
• Unify and modernize Teck’s core systems
• Establish technology foundation that facilitates
deployment of Connect and Automate reliably and at
scale
• For example: Wireless site infrastructure to support
automation, sensing, site communications, information
access, pit-to-port integration and advanced analytics
• Accelerate and scale autonomy program
• Transformational shift in safety
• Reduce per-tonne mining costs with smaller fleets
• Provide innovation platform to enable implementation
of advanced analytics to drive cycle time improvement
& predictive maintenance
Renew Automate

RACE21TM
66
• Link disparate systems into a collaborative digital
platform with powerful tools for sensing and analyzing
in real time
• For example: Dynamic and predictive models to
reduce variability, leading to significant improvements
in throughput and recovery
• The natural implication of Renew, Automate, and
Connect is we can re-imagine what it means to work
at Teck and re-design our operating model to attract,
recruit, train and retain the workforce of the future
Connect Empower

Significant Value To Be Captured
67
COST
Reduced
operational costs
by achieving
manufacturing
levels of variability
PROFITABILITY
Step-change
impact to
profitability
SAFETY
Transformational
safety impact with
fewer people in
high risk
environments
PRODUCTIVITY
Increased
productivity through
new technologies
and internal
innovation
Example value capture areas: Autonomy, Integrated Operations, Advanced Analytics, Real Time Data Systems
A Sustainable Future

$150M Plan Announced in our Q2 2019 Results
68
“Implementing our RACE21TM
innovation-driven efficiency program to
generate an initial $150 million in
annualized EBITDA1 improvements by the
end of 2019”
“RACE21™ is about taking a company-wide
approach to renewing our technology
infrastructure, looking at opportunities for
automation and robotics, connecting our data
systems to enable broad application of
advanced analytics and artificial intelligence,
and empowering our employees, with a focus
on making real progress between now and
2021.”
EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” Appendix slide.

Specific Opportunities Are Targeted For 2019
69
• Maintenance analytics
Predictive Maintenance
• Haul cycle analytics
• Fuel dashboard
• Drill & blast optimization
Mining Analytics
• Wash plant optimization
• Mill optimization
Processing Analytics

Electrification of Mining
Teck is taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint by starting to electrify the fleet.
70
Electric crew buses at our
steel making coal
operations.
Electric boom vehicles to be
tested in pit.
Working with OEMs through
ICMM to develop zero-GHG
surface mining vehicles

RACE21TM - Transforming Our Business
71
2021 2023 2025-30
Value
RACE21TM
(Autonomy program
for mobile fleet
substantially complete)
Teck’s Future Operation
Today
• Innovation
• Operational excellence
RACE21TM – Teck’s future operation
• Analytics throughout value chain
• Broad application of autonomy
• Electrification, alternate truck size
• Reduced energy & water footprint
RACE21TM
(Significant value captured)
2019
End
RACE21TM
(Target: $150M)
RACE21TM – Teck transforming to be a leader
in extracting value from technology
• Renewed digital infrastructure
• Autonomous haul
• Connected data platform
• Empowered workforce

Steelmaking Coal
Business Unit & Markets

Our Market is Seaborne Hard Coking Coal2: ~200 Million Tonnes
Steelmaking Coal Facts
Global Coal Production1:
~7.5 billion tonnes
Steelmaking Coal Production2:
~1,150 million tonnes
Export Steelmaking Coal2:
~350 million tonnes
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal2:
~310 million tonnes
73
• ~0.7 tonnes of steelmaking coal is used to
produce each tonne of steel3
• Up to 100 tonnes of steelmaking coal is required
to produce the steel in the average wind turbine4

Steelmaking Coal Demand Growth Forecast
Growth drivers: Southeast Asia, India and China
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Imports1 (Mt)
Change 2019 vs. 2018
74
Includes:
• Southeast Asia: Growth mostly from Vietnam
• India: Driven by secular demand and government
growth targets
• Europe: Weaker hot metal production
• China: Analyst views range from +4 Mt to
+8 Mt2
• Brazil: Analyst views ranging from -3 Mt to
+1 Mt3
309
315
315-324
5
5 64
1
280
290
300
310
320
330
2018 SE Asia India Europe 2019, ex
China & Brazil
China Brazil 2019

Indian Steelmaking Coal Imports
Imports supported by secular demand and government growth targets
75
Indian Seaborne Coking Coal Imports2 (Mt)Indian Crude Steel Production1 (Mt)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
10
20
30
40
50
60

76
Growing India Steelmaking Coal Imports
India plans to achieve 300 Mt of crude steel capacity by 2030-2031
Steel Producer Location
Hot Metal Capacity
Growth (Mt)
Tata Steel Dhenkanal, Odisha 7
JSW Vijiayanagar, Karnataka 6
Essar Hazira, Gujarat 5
JSW Dolvi, Maharashtra 5
Tata Steel Kalinganagar, Odisha 5
Tata Steel Jamshedpur, Jharhand 2
BPSL Sambalpur, Odisha 2
Vedanta Bokaro, Jharkhand 2
Existing Hot Metal Capacity
Brownfield Expansion
Jammu &
Kashmir
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Bihar
Maharashtra
Tamil
Nadu
Odisha
West
Bengal
Telangana
Andhra
Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Greenfield Project
Greenfield Projects (samples)1
India’s Hot Metal Capacity; Projects and Operations1
Brownfield Expansions (samples)1
National Steel Policy 20172
Parameters
Projections
(2030-31)
Total crude steel capacity, Mt 300
Total crude steel demand/production, Mt 255
Coking coal requirement, Mt 161
Non-coking coal requirement for PCI, Mt 31
Steel Producer Location Hot Metal Capacity (Mt)
JSW Paradip, Odisha 14
JSW Ranchi, Jharkhand 10
JSPL Patratu, Jharkhand 5
Vedanta Bellary, Karnataka 5
Welspun Kutch, Gujarat 3

Chinese Steelmaking Coal Imports
Seaborne YTD September 2019 imports up by +4 Mt
77
Chinese Coking Coal Imports2 (Mt)
Chinese Crude Steel Production (CSP), Hot Metal
Production (HMP) and Coal Production (Mt)1
32
25
34
60
48
35 36
44
37 43
15
20
19
16
15
13
24
26
28
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mongolia Coking Coal Imports
Seaborne Coking Coal Imports
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
CSP (LHS)
HMP (LHS)
Coking Coal Production (RHS)

Large Users in China Increasing Imports
~2/3 of China crude steel produced on coast; projects support imports
78
Seaborne Coking Coal Imports1 (Mt)
HBIS LAOTING PROJECT
• Inland plant relocating to coastal area
• Capacity: crude steel 20 Mt
• Status: Construction started in 2017; completion
in 2020
ZONGHENG FENGNAN PROJECT
• Capacity: crude steel 8 Mt
• Status: Construction started in 2017; 2 of 5 BFs
completed by May 2019; remaining 3 BFs to
complete in 2020
SHOUGANG JINGTANG PLANT
• Expansion
• Capacity: crude steel 9.4 Mt (phase 2)
• Status: Construction started in 2015; 1 of 2 BFs
completed in Apr 2019
LIUSTEEL FANGCHENG PROJECT
• Greenfield project
• Capacity: Phase 1 crude steel ~10 Mt
• Status: Construction started in 2017; 2 of 4
BFs to complete by the end of 2019
BAOWU ZHANJIANG PLANT
• Expansion
• Capacity: crude steel 3.6 Mt (phase 2)
• Status: Construction started in Apr 2019;
completion in 2021
BAOWU YANCHENG PROJECT
• Capacity: crude steel 20 Mt (phase 1: 8~10 Mt)
• Status: Phase 1 construction started in May 2019
11 6 10
21 21 22 25 25 24
21
19
25
39
26
13 11
18
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
15 users Non-15 users

Chinese Steel Margins
Margins have declined but remain positive
China Hot Rolled Coil (HRC) Margins and Steelmaking Coal (HCC) Prices1
(US$/t)
79
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jan-15
Mar-15
May-15
Jul-15
Sep-15
Nov-15
Jan-16
Mar-16
May-16
Jul-16
Sep-16
Nov-16
Jan-17
Mar-17
May-17
Jul-17
Sep-17
Nov-17
Jan-18
Mar-18
May-18
Jul-18
Sep-18
Nov-18
Jan-19
Mar-19
May-19
Jul-19
Sep-19
Nov-19
China HRC Gross Margins China Domestic HCC Price Argus Premium HCC CFR China

Chinese Scrap Use to Increase Slowly
EAF share in crude steel production to recover only to 2013’s level
80
78% 72%
55%
40% 39% 35% 32%
23%
37%
18%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
China’s Scrap Ratio was ~1/2 of World Average
in 20171 (%)
Crude Steel
Electric Arc Furnace
Hot Metal
China Steel Use By Sector
(2000-2018)2
Crude Steel and Electric Arc Furnace Production3 (Mt)
Construction
50-60%
Machinery
15-20%
Auto
5-10%
Others
15-25%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Steelmaking Coal Supply Growth Forecast
Growth comes from Australia, Russia and Colombia
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Exports1 (Mt)
Change 2019 vs. 2018
81
Includes:
• Australia: Growth from existing mines (Caval
Ridge/Peak Downs, Grosvenor, Appin, Byerwen)
• Russia and Colombia: Growth from existing mines
• Canada: Growth from restarted mines
• Mozambique: Expected lower performance at
Vale’s Moatize
• USA: Analyst views range from -5 Mt to flat2
309
320
314-320
6 4 1 0 1 2
280
290
300
310
320
330
2018 Australia Russia Colombia Canada Mozambique 2019,
ex.USA
USA 2019

US Coal Producers are Swing Suppliers
82
US Steelmaking Coal Exports2 (Mt)Australian Steelmaking Coal Exports1 (Mt)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

Canadian & Mozambique Steelmaking Coal Exports
83
Mozambique Exports2 (Mt)Canadian Exports1 (Mt)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20182019E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20182019E

2nd Largest Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Supplier
Competitively positioned to supply steel producers worldwide
84
CHINA
2013: ~30%
2017: ~15%
2018: ~10%
INDIA
2013: ~5%
2017: ~10%
2018: ~15%
Sales Distribution
NORTH AMERICA
~5%
EUROPE
2013: ~15%
2017: ~20%
2018: ~15%
ASIA EXCL. CHINA & INDIA
2013: ~40%
2017: ~45%
2018: ~50%
LATIN AMERICA
~5%
Sales to India Exceeded China from 2018

An Integrated Long Life Coal Business
85
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
Elco
ELK VALLEY
1,150 km
Neptune
Terminal
Coal
Mountain
Phase 2
• 940 million tonnes1 of
reserves support ~27 Mt of
production for many years
• Geographically concentrated
in the Elk Valley
• Established infrastructure and
capacity with mines, railways
and terminals

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Teck Coal BU CMO Closure CRO Closure EVO 8M EVO 9M
Long Life with Growth Potential
27+ million tonnes in 2021 and
beyond
− Investment in plant throughput capacity
at Elkview to capitalize on lower strip
ratio beginning in 2020
Investing in low capital intensity production
capacity to maximize near term profit and
generate production capacity
STEELMAKING COAL
Annual Production Capacity
(Million tonnes)
86

$57 $50 $51 $45 $43 $52 $62 $653
$194
$153
$126
$117
$153
$226
$243
$219
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
IFRS 16 Capital Lease Impact
Cost of Sales ($/t)
Realized CAD Sales Price ($/t)
Maximizing Cash Flow in Any
Steelmaking Coal Market
High Price Environment
• Production focus to capture high margins
and maximize free cash flow1
‒ Utilize higher cost equipment, contractor
labour, internal overtime, & intersite
processing to increase production
Low Price Environment
• Cost focus to protect margins and
maximize free cash flow1
‒ Parking higher cost equipment, reduced
contractor trades and mining reliance, hiring
freeze, lower material movement
‒ Emphasis on cost reduction initiatives
87
Adjusted Cash Cost of Sales2
and Realized Sales Price ($/t)
Adjusted Cash Cost of Sales2

Setting Up for Strong Long-Term Cash Flows
In Steelmaking Coal
Strip ratio increase planned in 2019 to
advance clean coal expansion
• Future strip ratio on par with historical
average
Elkview Operations driving the increase
in clean coal strip ratio to advance ability
to produce at 9 million tonne rate by 2021
• Elkview strip ratio drops from 10.9 in 2019
to 7.5 by 2023
‒ 2018-2029 average of 9.0
88
6
8
10
12
Clean Strip Ratio1
6 Year Average 5 Year Average

$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Sustaining Excl. Water
Reinvesting to Maintain Productivities
And Manage Costs in Steelmaking Coal
Maintaining historical dollar per tonne
sustaining investment levels
2010-2016: Average spend of ~$6 per tonne1
• Reinvestment in 5 shovels, 50+ haul trucks
Long term Average spend of ~$6 per tonne1
• Reinvestment in equipment fleets and
technology to increase mining productivity and
processing capacity
89
Sustaining Capital, Excluding
Water Treatment1 ($/t)
Long term run rate for sustaining capital is ~$6 per tonne

-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Major Enhancement Swift Baldy Ridge EVO 9M
Major Enhancement Capital Expenditures1,2 ($M)
Investing In Production Capacity in Steelmaking Coal
Major enhancement projects increasing long-term
production capacity:
• SWIFT at Fording River Operations
• Baldy Ridge Extension at Elkview Operations
• 9 Million project at Elkview Operations
2010-2016: Average spend of ~$160 million2 per year
• Increased production capacity by ~3.5 million tonnes
2017-2023: Average spend of ~$149 million2 per year
• Increasing capacity for 2020-2026 production by
~1.5 million tonnes per year
‒ Increasing plant capacity at Elkview Operations
(EVO 9M)
90

SALES MIX
• ~40% quarterly contract price
• ~60% shorter than quarterly pricing mechanisms
(including “spot”)
PRODUCT MIX
• ~75% of production is high-quality HCC
• ~25% is a combination of SHCC, SSCC, PCI and a
small amount of thermal
• Varies quarter-to-quarter based on the mine plans
KEY FACTORS IMPACTING TECK’S AVERAGE
REALIZED PRICES
• Variations in our product mix
• Timing of sales
• Direction and underlying volatility of the daily price
assessments
• Spreads between various qualities of steelmaking coal
• Arbitrage between FOB Australia and CFR China pricing
Teck’s Pricing Mechanisms
Coal sales book generally moves with the market
91
Index Linked Sales
• Quarterly contract sales index linked
• Contract sales index linked
• Contract sales with index fallback
• Spot sales index linked
Fixed Price Sales
• Contract sales spot priced
• Contract sales with index fallback
• Spot sales with fixed price
80%
20% Index
Linked
Fixed
Price
Pricing Mechanisms (%)

Quality and Basis Spreads
Impact Teck’s average realized steelmaking coal prices
92
HCC FOB / CFR Prices and Spread2 (US$/t)HCC / SHCC Prices and Spread1 (US$/t)
0
25
50
75
100
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
HCC (LHS) SHCC (LHS) HCC / SHCC spread (RHS)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
HCC FOB Australia (LHS) HCC CFR China (LHS)
CFR / FOB spread (RHS)

~75 Mtpa of West Coast Port Capacity Planned
Teck port capacity exceeds current production plans
93
0
10
20
30
40
Ridley Neptune Westshore
Current Capacity Planned Growth
• Current capacity 35 Mtpa
• ~$275 million upgrade completed
• Teck is largest customer at 19 Mtpa
• Contract expires March 31, 2021
WESTSHORE TERMINALS
• Teck / Canpotex Joint Venture
• Current coal capacity 12.5 Mtpa
• Significant investment to upgrade
and rejuvenate
• Planned growth to >18.5 Mtpa
NEPTUNE COAL TERMINAL
• Current capacity 18 Mtpa
• Teck contracted at 3 Mtpa
• Planned growth to >20 Mtpa
RIDLEY TERMINALS
West Coast Port Capacity (Nominal Mt)

Notes: Appendix – Steelmaking Coal
Slide 73: Steelmaking Coal Facts
1. Source: IEA.
2. Source: Wood Mackenzie (Long Term Outlook H1 2019).
3. Source: World Coal Association. Assumes all of the steel required is produced by blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace route.
4. Source: The Coal Alliance. Assumes all of the steel required is produced by blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace route.
Slide 74: Steelmaking Coal Demand Growth Forecast
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019).
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019) and China Customs (September 2019 year-to-date year-over-year growth).
3. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019) and CRU (Coal Market Outlook August 2019).
Slide 75: Indian Steelmaking Coal Imports
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from WSA. 2019 is September year-to-date annualized.
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Global Trade Atlas. 2019 is based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019).
Slide 76: Growing India Steelmaking Coal Imports
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Indian Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Wood Makenzie, CRU and Teck’s analysis of other public disclosures of various entities.
2. Source: India’s National Steel Policy 2017.
Slide 77: Chinese Steelmaking Coal Imports
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from NBS and Fenwei. 2019 is September year-to-date annualized for crude steel production, hot metal production and coking coal production.
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from China Customs and Fenwei. 2019 is September year-to-date annualized for Mongolia imports and is based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019)
and China Customs (September 2019 year-to-date year-over-year growth) for seaborne imports.
Slide 76: Large Users in China Increasing Imports
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from China Customs, Fenwei and internal sources.
Slide 79: Chinese Steel Margins
1. Source: China HRC Gross Margins is estimated by Mysteel. China Domestic HCC Price is Liulin #4 price sourced from Sxcoal and is normalized to CFR China equivalent. Seaborne HCC Price (CFR China) is based on Argus Premium HCC
CFR China. Plotted to November 8, 2019.
Slide 80: Chinese Scrap Use to Increase Slowly
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from WSA.
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from China Metallurgy Industry Planning and Research Institute.
3. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Long Term Outlook H1 2019) and CRU (Crude Steel Market Outlook October 2019).
Slide 81: Steelmaking Coal Supply Growth Forecast
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019).
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019) and T.Parker (difference between September 2019 year-to-date annualized and 2018 exports).
Slide 82: US Coal Producers are Swing Suppliers
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Global Trade Atlas. US exports do not include exports to Canada. 2019 is based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019) and T.Parker (difference
between September 2019 year-to-date annualized and 2018 exports).
Slide 83: Canadian & Mozambique Steelmaking Coal Exports
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Long Term Outlook H1 2019). 2019 is based on information from Wood Mackenzie (Short Term Outlook October 2019).
94

Notes: Appendix – Steelmaking Coal
Slide 85: An Integrated Long Life Coal Business
1. Sites at 100% tonnes as at January 1, 2019. Source: Teck AIF.
Slide 86: Long Life with Growth Potential in Steelmaking Coal
1. Subject to market conditions and obtaining relevant permits.
Slide 87: Maximizing Cash Flow in Any Steelmaking Coal Market
1. Free cash flow is a non-GAAP measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
2. Adjusted cash cost of sales is a non-GAAP measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
3. Assumes cost of sales of $63/tonne for 2019. Effective January 1, 2019, the IFRS 16 accounting standard change required the capitalization of equipment leases historically included in cost of sales. This policy change is expected to decrease
cost of sales by ~$2/tonne, therefore a cost of sales figure of $65/tonne should be used for comparison to historical figures.
Slide 88: Setting Up for Strong Long-Term Cash Flows in Steelmaking Coal
1. Reflects weighted average strip ratio of all coal operations.
Slide 89: Reinvesting to Maintain Productivities and Manage Costs in Steelmaking Coal
1. Historical spend has not been adjusted for inflation or foreign exchange. 2019-2023 assumes annualized average production of 26.9 million tonnes and excludes the impact of the change in accounting for leases under IFRS 16. All dollars
referenced are Teck’s portion net of POSCAN credits for Greenhills Operations at 80% and excludes the portion of sustaining capital relating to water treatment and Neptune Terminal.
Slide 90: Investing In Production Capacity in Steelmaking Coal
1. Historical spend has not been adjusted for inflation or foreign exchange. 2019-2023 excludes the impact of the change in accounting for leases under IFRS 16.
2. All dollars referenced are Teck’s portion net of POSCAN credits for Greenhills Operations at 80% and excludes the portion of major enhancement capital relating to the Neptune Facility Upgrade.
3. Swift, Baldy Ridge Extension, and Elkview 9M project spending in 2019 is noted to illustrate the peak in major enhancement spending. All projects have spending prior and subsequent to 2019.
Slide 92: Quality and Basis Spreads
1. HCC price is average of the Argus Premium HCC Low Vol, Platts Premium Low Vol and TSI Premium Coking Coal assessments, all FOB Australia and in US dollars. SHCC price is average of the Platts HCC 64 Mid Vol and TSI HCC
assessments, all FOB Australia and in US dollars. Source: Argus, Platts, TSI. Plotted to November 13, 2019.
2. HCC FOB Australia price is average of the Argus Premium HCC Low Vol, Platts Premium Low Vol and TSI Premium Coking Coal assessments, all FOB Australia and in US dollars. HCC CFR China price is average of the Argus Premium HCC
Low Vol, Platts Premium Low Vol and TSI Premium JM25 Coking Coal assessments, all CFR China and in US dollars. Source: Argus, Platts, TSI. Plotted to November 13, 2019.
95

Copper

• Mine production currently peaks in 2022
• Chinese mine production growth relatively flat at
~100 kmt per year
• Total probable projects: 1,150 kmt
Mine kmt
Cobre Panama 370
Kamoa - Kakula 310
Quellaveco 300
Quebrada Blanca 300
Glencore’s African mine restarts 240
PT - Freeport 200
China 350
All others (Spence, Chuqui UG, Escondida) 1,860
Reductions & Closures (1,660)
Mine Production Set To Increase 1.9 Mt By 20231
Includes:
97
Global Copper Mine Production Increasing Slowly
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Other China
Glencore Africa Cobre Panama
Quellaveco Quebrada Blanca
Kamoa-Kakula New Mines
Global Copper Mine Production2 (kt contained)

98
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
$110
$120
Annual/Mid Year Spot -1,200
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Q3
2019
Disruptions (kt)2;TC/RCs Spot and BM Falling1 (US$/lb)
2.8%
3.6%
2.7%
4.6%
YTD
Copper Disruptions Return To Impact Mines
6.8%

0
100
200
300
400
Rapid Growth in Chinese Copper Smelter Capacity
Limited domestic mine projects and lots of delays
99
+3.0 Mt of Smelting Projects in the Pipeline2
(kt blister)
Chinese Copper Mine Growth1
(kt)
0
100
200
300
400
2019
49 kt
2020
61 kt
2020 – 2023
240 kt
2018/2019
2,030 kt
2020
520 kt
2020 – 2023
480 kt

0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Pumpkin Hollow Spence Mirador
Dikuluwe OT UG Kamoa
Lone Star Aktogay Anto Exp
Mina Justa Quellaveco QB2
Salobo III Timok Others
Copper Supply
Mine production rising and scrap availability falling
100
Sanctioned Projects Since 20171 (kt)
Chinese Imports Shift to Concentrates3
(Copper content, kt)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019e
Concentrates Blister Scrap Cathode
New mines commissioned will
add 2.5 Mt from 2017-2025
Chinese Scrap/Blister Imports Fall2
(Copper content, kt)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 e
Blister Scrap

Copper Metal Stocks
Better than expected demand; smelter disruptions
• Production cuts at Asian smelters combined with
lower scrap availability contributed to a drawdown
in cathode stocks
• Exchange stocks have fallen 512,700 tonnes since
March 2018, now equivalent to 5.9 days of global
consumption
• Exchange stocks fell 115,000 tonnes in
September 2019 and a further 21,000 tonnes since
• Prices have weakened over the last quarter falling
below $6,000/mt to $5,800/mt, the lowest levels
since early 2017
• At current prices, into the 90th percentile of the
C2 cost curve
101
Daily Copper Prices (US$/mt) and Stocks1 (kt)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
LME Stocks Comex
SHFE Bonded Estimate
Price

-500
500
1,500
2,500
3,500
4,500
5,500
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Gap to High Brownfield Probable
Greenfield Probable SXEW Projects
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Copper Supply / Demand Balance
Projects available to fill low demand scenario gap
102
Probable Projects Sufficient Only To Fill
Low Gap Scenario2 (kt)
Assumed Average Growth to 2024:
• High Demand (2.7%): 3.1 million tonne gap
• Base Demand (1.6%): 2.0 million tonne gap
Existing and Fully Committed Supply1 (kt)
Additional
gap to
base
demand
Additional
gap to
high
demand
Gap to
low
demand

Long Life and Stable Assets in Copper
103
Antamina Highland Valley
• Copper production through
end of Q3 of 76,000
tonnes, guidance
maintained at 95,000 to
100,000 tonnes in 2019
• Lower zinc in 2019,
increasing in 2020
• New 3-year collective
agreement
• Higher recoveries driving
increased copper
production
• Technology focus with
autonomous haulage,
shovel-based ore sorting,
and advanced analytics
• D3 mill project complete in
Q2 2019, ahead of
schedule and under budget
Carmen de Andacollo
• June thickener failure
impacted Q2 2019 copper
production, no impact to
annual guidance
• Improved sizer availability
and mill throughput in
H2 2019
• Labour action in Q4 2019
Quebrada Blanca
• Copper production on track
with leaching operations
• Mine fleet supporting QB2
earthworks
• QB2 operations readiness
well advanced
Foundation of Stable Operations

Cost Discipline and Improvement Focus in Copper
Operating Expenses & Productivity
• Cross site sharing in asset management
continues to improve availabilities and
reduce costs
• Robust continuous improvement pipeline is
a key driver of margins
Supply Management at Teck
• Leveraging Teck-wide spending
• 7 primary categories started in 2010 with
>$50 million in sustained annual savings
• 6 more categories added in 2018
- Additional $30 million in annual savings
• China sourcing initiative
104
Copper Sustaining Capital Profile (C$M)
Focused Investment Priorities
• Numerous projects finishing in 2019 and
early 2020
- D3 Ball Mill at HVC, QB1 water
management
• Near term spending driven by tailings
facility cost at Antamina – declining in 2022
• Long-term sustaining capex in copper
expected at $125 million, excluding QB2
-
100
200
300
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022+

Major Growth and Life Extension Projects in Copper
Setting up for long-term success
Quebrada Blanca
• QB2: 316 kt of CuEq production for first 5 years1
- Doubles copper production with low strip ratio and AISC
of US$1.38/lb copper2
• QB3: Scoping Study on expansion potential in progress
- Mineral resource supports up to 3 times milling rate, with
low strip ratio and low anticipated AISC2
- Capitally efficient, leveraging QB2 infrastructure
NuevaUnión
• Feasibility Study (FS) completion in Q1 2020
Life Extension Projects
• HVC 2040 FS completion expected H1 2020
- Targeting ~13 year extension
• Antamina advancing extension and debottlenecking studies
• Red Dog resource definition drilling ongoing on Aktigiruq
and Anarraaq deposits
105

Notes: Appendix – Copper
Slide 97: Global Copper Mine Production Increasing Slowly
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie and Company Reports (average production first 10 years)
2. Source: Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie and Teck’s analysis of publicly available quarterly financial reports and other public disclosures of various entities.
Slide 98: Copper Disruptions Return to Impact Mines
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie, CRU, and Metal Bulletin.
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from Wood Mackenzie and Teck’s analysis of publicly available quarterly financial reports and other public disclosures of various entities.
Slide 99: Rapid Growth in Chinese Copper Smelter Capacity
1. Includes mine projects with copper capacity >10 ktpa. Source: BGRIMM.
2. Source: BGRIMM, SMM, Teck.
Slide 100: Copper Supply
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie, Teck, Company Reports. Announced Project Sanctioning Decisions since January 2018, Based on Corporate Guidance and/or Wood Mac forecasts to Q3 2019.
2. Source: Wood Mackenzie, GTIS, SMM.
3. Source: Wood Mackenzie, GTIS, NBS, SMM.
Slide 101: Copper Metal Stocks
1. Source: LME, Comex, SHFE, SMM
Slide 102: Copper Supply / Demand Balance
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie, ICA, Yale, Teck. Low Demand based on Wood Mackenzie forecast demand outlook. Base Case Demand based on Teck copper demand model. High Demand based on combination of ICA study done for long term
Copper Demand and a Yale University study done based on IEA forecasts for 2DS on Climate reduction goals.
2. Source: Wood Mackenzie, ICA, Yale, Teck. Forecasts based on projects from Wood Mackenzie Probable list of projects from Q3 2019 flexed at their historic rates of probable projects entering production (70% of Probable Brownfields, 50% of
Probable Greenfield projects and an allowance for unidentified mine extensions based on historic precedent that 20% of capacity projected to close will stay open through such extensions).
Slide 105: Major Growth and Life Extension Projects in Copper
1. Copper equivalent production calculated for the first 5 full years of production assuming US$3.00/lb copper, US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver without adjusting for payability.
106

3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019e
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019e
Environmental Policy Decreasing Chinese Production
108
Chinese Refined Production Down 3.4% in 20182
(kt Contained)
Chinese Mine Production Down 2.4% in 20181
(kt Contained)

652
503
770 788
1,440
1,242 1,246 1,247
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
2021E
2022E
Increasing Demand for Zinc Metal Imports
109
Additional Zinc Metal
Required to Fill the Gap3 (kt)
De-stocking Continues
Chinese Stocks at Record Lows1,2 (kt)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Jan-12
Jul-12
Jan-13
Jul-13
Jan-14
Jul-14
Jan-15
Jul-15
Jan-16
Jul-16
Jan-17
Jul-17
Jan-18
Jul-18
Jan-19
Jul-19
Domestic Commercial Stocks Bonded Stocks
Smelter + Consumer Stocks
Smelter cutbacks led to drawdown of warehouse inventories – now record low;
If China does import 1.7 Mt of concentrates, still requires 1.4 Mt of additional metal

• Teck originally forecast global mine production
would grow 7.9% or over 800,000 tonnes in 2018
‒ Due to start up of large mines, Dugald River, Gamsberg,
New Century and restarts by Glencore
• Global mine production in 2018 missed Teck’s
forecast by almost 600,000 tonnes
‒ Slow or delayed start-ups at New Century, Gamsberg,
and several smaller mines
‒ China originally expected to increase 250,000 tonnes
contained in 2018, but now estimated to be down
110,000 tonnes contained in 2018
• Today, Teck forecasted an 8.1% increase in mine
production in 2019, now down to 5.3%
‒ Mine guidance has already decreased around 465,000
tonnes YTD 2019
‒ Mines continue to close due to poor profit margins,
reaching four mines so far in 2019.
‒ Chinese environmental inspections continue at domestic
mines and may restrict production into H2 2019
Zinc Supply
Mine production missed forecast in 2018
110
Zinc Mine Production1 (kt contained)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
ROW Others China Glencore Dugald River
Gamsberg New Century New Mines

3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
100
350
270
180
300
250 237
360
200
-630
60
-50
-111
62
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Early-year estimate Adjusted estimate
Chinese Zinc Mine Projects Delayed
Impacted by inspections and low zinc ore grades
111
Estimated Chinese Zinc Mine Growth
Rarely Achieved1 (Kmt Contained)
0
200
400
600
Chinese Mine Growth 2019-2021 Heavily
Dependent On Single Project2 (kt contained)
Zinc Ore Grades Falling at Chinese Mines3
(Ore grade, zinc %)

Zinc Concentrate Treatment Charges
Treatment Charges1 (USD/dmt)
112
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Spot TC Benchmark TC

Zinc Metal Stocks
Consecutive deficits decreasing zinc inventories
• Deficits in past 5 years have driven down stocks
• LME refined zinc stocks have decreased almost
70,000 tonnes year-to-date in 2019
• Less than 60,000 tonnes of refined zinc remaining
on LME
• Chinese refined production has recovered,
surpassing subdued levels from 2018
• Despite growing domestic production, refined
imports remain elevated, up 7.2% YTD, and SHFE
stocks continue to decrease, down 67,000 from
2019 peak
• Smelter cuts announced in YTD 2019:
‒ Elektrozinc Russia (80,000 tonnes) permanently
closed due to safety infractions following a fire
‒ Skorpion closing from November-February, due to
decreased integrated mine supply
‒ Suspension of Mooresboro after fire in cell house
113
Daily Zinc Prices1,2 (US$/mt)
and Stocks1,2 (kmt)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
LME Stocks Bonded SHFE Price

Additional
gap to
base
demand
Additional
gap to
high
demand
Gap to
low
demand
0
500
1,000
1,500
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Greenfield Brownfield/Restart
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Refined Production Base Demand
Low Demand High Demand
Assumed Average Growth to 2024:
• High Demand (2.0%): 1.7 million tonne gap
• Base Demand (1.2%): 1.3 million tonne gap
• Low Demand (0.7%): 0.7 million tonne gap
Zinc Supply / Demand Balance
Zinc mine production peaks in 2021
114
Probable Projects Sufficient To Fill Gap2 (kt)Existing and Fully Committed Supply1 (kt)

Largest Global Net Zinc Mining Companies
Teck is the Largest Net Zinc Miner1(kt)
Provides significant exposure to a rising zinc price
115
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Teck
Public Company
Private Company

Integrated Zinc Business
116
Red Dog Trail
• Strong Q2 & Q3 2019 production
offset difficult Q1 winter weather
conditions
• Raised lead guidance, and lowered
unit costs in Q2
• Shipping season progressing well
• VIP2 project advancing to
commissioning in 2020 and expected
to improve throughput by ~15%
• Zinc production impacted by recent
electrical equipment failure in refinery,
reducing production by ~25,000
tonnes
• Acid Plant #2 project completed ahead
of schedule and under budget
• Focus on margin improvement
including automation in melting plant
• Improving outlook for TC’s and
profitability in 2020
Pend Oreille
• Care and maintenance started in
August
• Decision on path forward anticipated
end 2019
Strengthening our Zinc Business

Cost Discipline and Improvement Focus in Zinc
Operating Expenses & Productivity
• Cross site sharing in asset management
continues to improve availabilities and
reduce costs
• Robust continuous improvement pipeline is
a key driver of margins
Supply Management at Teck
• Leveraging Teck-wide spending
• 7 primary categories started in 2010 with
>$50 million in sustained annual savings
• 6 more categories added in 2018
- Additional $30 million in annual savings
• China sourcing initiative
117
Zinc Sustaining Capital Profile (C$M)
Focused Investment Priorities
• Numerous projects finishing in 2019 and
early 2020
- VIP2 at Red Dog, Acid Plant #2 at Trail
• Near term spending driven by tailings
facility cost at Red Dog
• Long-term sustaining capex in zinc
expected at $150 million
-
100
200
300
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022+

Red Dog Sales Seasonality
• Operates 12 months
• Ships ~ 4 months
• Shipments to inventory in Canada
and Europe; Direct sales to Asia
• ~65% of zinc sales in second half
of year
• ~100% of lead sales in second half
of year
118
0% 0%
57%
42%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
21%
15%
30%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Zinc Sales 1 (%)
Lead Sales1 (%)

Red Dog Net Cash Unit Cost Seasonality
Significant quarterly variation
Red Dog Net Cash Unit Costs1 (US$/lb)
119
• Seasonality of Red Dog unit costs largely due to lead sales during the shipping season
• Zinc is a by-product credit at Antamina and accounted for in the Copper Business Unit
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Red Dog in Bottom Quartile of Zinc Cost Curves
Total Cash + Capex Cost Curve 20201 (US¢/lb)
120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
2020 Costs Based on Current Prices Current Spot LME Price
RED DOG

Red Dog Extension Project
Long Life Asset
• Aktigiruq exploration target of 80-150 Mt @ 16-18% Zn + Pb1
• Anarraaq Inferred Resource2: 19.4 Mt @14.4% Zn, 4.2% Pb
Quality Project
• Premier zinc district
• Significant mineralized system
• High grade
Stable Jurisdiction
• Operating history
• ~12 km from Red Dog operations
• Strong community ties
Path to Value Realization
• 2001: Initial drill hole
• 2017: Exploration target announced
• Next 18 months: Advancing delineation
121

GIANT ZINC DEPOSITS (+6 Mt Zn+Pb)
Building a Quality Zinc Inventory
Potential New GIANT System1
(Contained Zn+Pb in Mt and Grade Zn+Pb in %)
122

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
GradeZn+Pb%
Resource Mt
Red Dog
Past Production
Rampura
Agucha
Broken Hill
McArthur River
GIANT ZINC DEPOSITS (+6 Mt Zn+Pb)
Qanaiyaq
Aqqaluk
Teena
Anarraaq
Paalaaq
Su-Lik Hermosa
Aktigiruq Exploration Target1
80-150 Mt
16-18% Zn+Pb
Global Context of Teck’s Zinc Resources
Well positioned; world class
Teck’s Zinc Resources1
(Resource in Mt and Grade Zn+Pb in %)
123

Notes: Appendix – Zinc
Slide 108: Environmental Policy Decreasing Chinese Production
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from BGRIMM, CNIA, Antaike
Slide 109: Increasing Demand for Zinc Metal Imports
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck Analysis based on information SHFE, SMM,
2. Source: ”Smelter + consumer stocks” refers to zinc metal held in the plants of smelters and semi producers and those on the road; ”Bonded stocks” refers to zinc stored in bonded zones and will need to complete Customs clearance before
entering China; ”Domestic commercial stocks” refers to zinc stored in SHFE warehouses and other domestic commercial warehouses not registered in SHFE.
3. Source: Data compiled by Teck Analysis based on historic numbers from China Customs, and forecasts based on data from BGRIMM, Antaike and Teck’s commercial contacts.
Slide 119: Zinc Supply
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from BGRIMM, CNIA, Antaike and Teck analysis
Slide 111: Chinese Zinc Mine Projects Delayed
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from BGRIMM, CNIA, Antaike. Early year estimates from consolidation of several analyst views in the year preceding.
3. Source: Data compiled by Teck based on information from BGRIMM, CNIA, Antaike., NBS.
Slide 112: Zinc Concentrate Treatment Charges
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie.
Slide 113: Zinc Metal Stocks
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck from information from LME, SHFE, SMM.
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck from information from LME, Fastmarkets, Argus, Acuity, company reports.
Slide 114: Zinc Supply / Demand Balance
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck from information from Wood Mackenzie, SMM. Base Case Demand based on Teck Zinc demand model. High Demand based long term historical averages and view on improved Trade Outlook flexed into Base
Demand Model.
2. Source: Data compiled by Teck from information from Wood Mackenzie, AME. Forecasts based on projects from Wood Mackenzie Probable list of projects from Q3 2019 flexed at their historic rates of probable projects entering production (only
50% – 60% of probable zinc projects and zinc mine life extensions historically are brought to market).
124

Notes: Appendix – Zinc
Slide 115: Largest Global Net Zinc Mining Companies
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck from information from Wood Mackenzie – Company smelter production netted against company mine production on an equity basis.
Slide 118: Red Dog Sales Seasonality
1. Average sales from 2014 to 2018.
Slide 119: Red Dog Net Cash Unit Cost Seasonality
1. Average quarterly net cash unit cost in 2014 to 2018, before royalties. Based on Teck ‘s reported financials. Net cash unit cost is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 120: Red Dog in Bottom Quartile of Zinc Cost Curves
1. Source: Data compiled by Teck from information from Wood Mackenzie, LME – Based on WM Forecast information and estimates for 2020 based on current short term average prices.
Slide 121: Red Dog Extension Project
1. Aktigiruq is an exploration target, not a resource. Refer to press release of September 18, 2017, available on SEDAR. Potential quantity and grade of this exploration target is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to
define a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.
2. See 2018 Annual Information Form.
Slide 122: Building a Quality Zinc Inventory
1. Sources: S&P Global Market Intelligence, SNL Metals & Mining Database, Teck Public Disclosures. Aktigiruq is an exploration target, not a resource. Refer to press release of September 18, 2017, available on SEDAR. Potential quantity and
grade of this exploration target is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.
Slide 123: Global Context of Teck’s Zinc Resources
1. Sources: S&P Global Market Intelligence, SNL Metals & Mining Database, Teck Public Disclosures. Aktigiruq is an exploration target, not a resource. Refer to press release of September 18, 2017, available on SEDAR. Potential quantity and
grade of this exploration target is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.
125

Energy

Energy Benchmark Pricing
Calendar NYMEX WTI Price1 and WTI/WCS Basis Differential2,3 (US$/bbl)
127
(10)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
(10)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Calendar NYMEX WTI Price WTI/WCS Basis Differential at Hardisty WTI/WCS Basis Differential at the USGC

US Midwest and US Gulf Coast are Key Markets
Blended Bitumen Pipelines
128
Enbridge/Line 3
TransMountain/TMX
TransCanada Keystone, Keystone XL
Market Hub
Deep Water Port
In Service Pipeline
Proposed Pipeline
Hardisty or Common Carriage
to Midwest / USGC
Cushing
Flanagan
Asia
Asia / Europe
California
Superior
Hardisty
Edmonton
Vancouver
Steele City
Montreal
The US Gulf Coast Market Has The Greatest Opportunity For Growth In Canadian Heavy Blend Sales

Existing Pipeline/Rail Sufficient to Meet Takeaway Capacity Through 2023
Export Capacity Needed To Meet Global Demand
Near term (2019-2021):
• Canadian export capacity lagging
• Reliant on rail (400-500 Kbpd)
Pipeline development progressing:
• Enbridge: 370 Kbpd (2020-2021)
• Keystone XL: 800 Kbpd (2022-2023)
• TMX: 600 Kbpd (2022-2023)
Longer term:
• Global heavy refining capacity increase
• US, India and China largest markets
129
Western Canada Supply & Markets1 (Mbpd)
Reliant on rail 2019-2022
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Keystone XL
TransMountain
TMX
Enbridge Line 3
Portfolio Optimization Rail
Current Market DemandProduction

350
400
450
500
550
600
Eagle Ford
Tight OIl
Arab Light Bakken Blend Russian Urals Mexican Maya Mining Oil
Sand Dilbit
PFT (e.g. Fort
Hills)
Nigerian Bonny
Light
Oil Sand In-
Situ dilbit
Oil Sand
Mining
Upgraded SCO
Average
California
Heavy
Lower Carbon Intensity Product at Fort Hills
Comparable to the average barrel refined in the U.S.
PFT Diluted Bitumen has a Lower Carbon Intensity Than
Around Half of the Barrels of Oil Refined in the US, on a Wells-to-Wheels Basis1
(Total carbon intensity - kgCO2e per barrel of refined products)
130Source: IHS Energy Special Report “Comparing GHG Intensity of the Oil Sands and the Average US Crude Oil”, May 2014.
• Paraffinic Froth Treatment (PFT) removes asphaltenes
• Best in-class Canadian oil sands carbon intensity, including in-situ
• Pushing technology for continuous improvement
Carbon intensity of average
barrel refined in the US = 502

Fort Hills Blend Widely Accepted In Market
We produce a high quality refinery feedstock
• Low GHG intensity: <50% of US crude supply
• Including in-situ and upgraded synthetic
Our sales mix provides diverse market access
• 80% pipeline connected and 20% rail loading
• 10 Kbpd to US Gulf Coast and 39.5 Kbpd at
Hardisty
131
We are Well-Positioned for Future Opportunities
19.5
10.0
10.0
10.0 US Gulf Coast: monthly basis
Hardisty rail: long term contract
Hardisty pipeline: long term contract
Hardisty pipeline: monthly basis
Teck Blend:
49.5 Kbpd
Teck’s Commercial Activities1
Bitumen production 38.5 kbpd
+ Diluent acquisition 11.0 kbpd
= Bitumen blend sales 49.5 kbpd
Delivery Location (Kbpd)

Diverse Portfolio of Sales in Energy
Fort Hills blend sales subject to crude quality
differential vs Western Canadian Select:
• Estimated at minus US$3.50/bbl for 2020
132
60%
(Pipeline)20%
(Rail)
20%
(Pipeline)
HardistyUS Gulf Coast
Blend Sales By Delivery Point (%)
LOCATION NYMEX WTI WESTERN
CANADIAN SELECT
DIFFERENTIAL BASIS
US Gulf Coast
(Pipeline)
Calendar average
monthly WTI
Monthly contracted
spot differential at US
Gulf Coast
Hardisty:
Pipeline & Rail
Transfers
Calendar average
monthly WTI
Weighted average
WTI/WCS indexed
differential at Hardisty
Revenue (US$/bbl)

CNRL
Muskeg River
and Jackpine
CNRL
Horizon
Syncrude
Base
Syncrude
Aurora North
Imperia
l
Kearl
Suncor Base
Quality Barrels in a Progressive Jurisdiction
4th largest oil sands mining portfolio
Fort Hills in operation
• Teck 21.3% = 0.6 billion barrels1
Frontier in the regulatory phase
• Teck 100% = 3.2 billion barrels2
Lease 421: future growth
• Teck 50%
• High quality lease: high grade, high
recovery, low fines
133
Alberta, Canada
Strong Strategic Fit: Long Life Mining Assets and Low Operating Costs

Our Energy Strategy
Maximizing value of Fort Hills
• Start-up complete, increase production volumes, lower costs
Focus on Maximizing Shareholder Value and Positioning Teck as a Partner of Choice
134
De-risking Frontier & Lease 421
• Frontier regulatory hearing completed in 2018, decision in early 2020
Driving business results through technology & innovation
• Safe & reliable production, cost and footprint

Fort Hills is a Modern Mine
Built for low cost operations
Fort Hills 2018 Production @100% (Barrels per day)
135
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
High Quality Barrels with Significant Debottlenecking Potential
Great start-up
Exit 2018
@ 201,000 bpd
201,000 bpd
December 2018
<$23/bbl
adjusted operating costs1
December 2018
PFT Product
low GHG emissions

Attractive Debottlenecking Opportunities at Fort Hills
To be implemented in two phases
Potential capacity increase of
20 kbpd to 40 kbpd
• Teck’s share of annual production
could increase from 14.0 Mbpa to
15.5-17.0 Mbpa
• Near term opportunities require little
to no capital (phase 1)
• Longer term opportunities may require
modest capital (phase 2)
136
PFT Process
Significant Incremental EBITDA1 Potential

Significant EBITDA Upside Potential in Energy
Providing the basis for strong and steady cash flow for decades
EBITDA1 Potential – Teck’s share ($ millions)
137
Potential Annual EBITDA of $400 Million to $700 Million with Debottlenecking
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
194,000 bpd
(nameplate)
214,000 bpd
(phase 1)
234,000 bpd
(phase 2)
EBITDA (@$60 WTI) EBITDA (@$70 WTI)
+$150M
+$100M
ASSUMPTIONS
WTI @
US$70/BBL
WTI @
US$60/BBL
WTI-WCS differential US$10.00 US$14.75
C$/US$ exchange rate 1.30 1.32
Adjusted operating costs2 C$20/bbl C$20/bbl
Assumptions

Teck’s Energy Outlook
$141 million in EBITDA1 generated at Fort Hills in the first nine months of 2019
138
Sharp Focus On Reducing Costs (Operating and Capital)
PRODUCTION ADJUSTED OPERATING COSTS2 CAPITAL
2019 • Expect to be at the low end of our
annual bitumen production guidance of
33,000-38,000 barrels per day due to
extended curtailment
• With the lower production, we expect
unit operating costs to be near the high
end of our guidance range of C$26-29
per barrel1
• C$11.50-$13.50 per barrel
• Higher in 2019 due to tailings and
equipment ramp-up spending (as
previously disclosed in 2017 & 2018)
Life of Mine • Nameplate 194,000 bpd
• ~38,5003 bpd Teck’s share
• C$22-23/bbl4
• Long term target below C$20/bbl
• C$3-5/bbl5
• Government of Alberta curtailments effective January 1, 2019
• Fort Hills:

Notes: Appendix – Energy
Slide 127: Energy Benchmark Pricing
1. The WTI CMA is an average of the daily settle quoted price for WTI prices for future deliveries for the trading days during a calendar month. Source: CME Group. As at October 23, 2019.
2. WCS at Hardisty: an index value determined during the trading period, which is typically the first 9 to 11 business days of the month prior to the month of delivery and does not include trades done after this trading period or during the month of
delivery. Sources: Net Energy and CalRock. As at October 22, 2019.
3. Source: Link. A simple average of Link brokerage assessments for the month of delivery during the trading period, which is typically the 25th of two months prior to the month of delivery to the 25th of the month prior to the month of delivery. As
at October 22, 2019.
Slide 129: Export Capacity Needed to Meet Global Demand
1. Sources: IHSMarkit, Lee & Doma, Teck Energy.
Slide 130: Lower Carbon Intensity Product at Fort Hills
1. Source: IHS Energy Special Report “Comparing GHG Intensity of the Oil Sands and the Average US Crude Oil” May 2014. SCO stands for Synthetic Crude Oil.
Slide 133: Quality Barrels in a Progressive Jurisdiction
1. Proved and probable reserves as at December 31, 2018. See Teck’s 2018 Annual Information Form available under our profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov) for further information regarding Fort Hills reserves.
2. Best estimate of unrisked contingent resources as at December 31, 2018, prepared by an independent qualified resources evaluator. Further information about these resource estimates, and the related risks and uncertainties and contingencies
that prevent the classification of resources as reserves, is set out in Teck’s management discussion and analysis dated February 12, 2019 available under our profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov) . There is no
certainty that the Frontier project will produce any portion of the volumes currently classified as contingent resources.
Slide 135: Fort Hills is a Modern Mine
1. Adjusted operating costs is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 136: Attractive Debottlenecking Opportunities at Fort Hills
Slide 137: Significant EBITDA Upside Potential in Energy
1. EBITDA assumes production is ~90% of stated amounts to account for planned outages. Includes Crown royalties assuming pre-payout phase. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 138: Teck’s Energy Outlook
1. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides, including Energy Business Unit EBITDA by entity.
3. Teck’s share of production assumes ~90% of nameplate capacity to account for planned outages.
4. Life of mine operating cost estimate represents the Operator’s estimate of costs for the Fort Hills mining and processing operations and do not include the cost of diluent, transportation, storage or blending. Estimates of Fort Hills operating costs
could be negatively affected by delays in or unexpected events involving the ramp up of production. Steady state operations assumes full production of ~90% of nameplate capacity of 194,000 barrels per day.
5. Sustaining cost estimates represent the Operator’s estimate of sustaining costs for the Fort Hills mining and processing operations. Estimates of Fort Hills sustaining costs could be negatively affected by delays in or unexpected events involving
the ramp up of production. Fort Hills has a >40 year mine life.
139

Non-GAAP Financial Measures
141
Our financial results are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This document refers to a number of Non-GAAP Financial Measures, which
are not measures recognized under IFRS in Canada and do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) in the United
States. The Non-GAAP Measures described below do not have standardized meanings under IFRS, may differ from those used by other issuers, and may not be comparable to such
measures as reported by others. These measures have been derived from our financial statements and applied on a consistent basis as appropriate. We disclose these measures
because we believe they assist readers in understanding the results of our operations and financial position and are meant to provide further information about our financial results to
investors. Free cash flow is presented to provide a means to evaluate shareholder returns. These measures should not be considered in isolation or used in substitute for other
measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.
EBITDA is profit attributable to shareholders before net finance expense, income and resource taxes, and depreciation and amortization. EBITDA margin for our operations as
business units is EBITDA (as described above) for those operations and business units, divided by the revenue for the relevant operation or business unit for the year-to-date. C1 cash
costs (also known as net cash unit costs) are presented after by-product credits assuming US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver. C1 cash costs for QB2 include stripping
costs during operations. Gross profit before depreciation and amortization is gross profit with the depreciation and amortization expense added back. We believe this measure assists
us and readers to assess our ability to generate cash flow from our business units or operations. Unit costs for our steelmaking coal operations are total cost of goods sold, divided by
tonnes sold in the period, excluding depreciation and amortization charges. We include this information as it is frequently requested by investors and investment analysts who use it to
assess our cost structure and margins and compare it to similar information provided by many companies in the industry. Adjusted site cost of sales for our steelmaking coal
operations is defined as the cost of the product as it leaves the mine excluding depreciation and amortization charges, outbound transportation costs and any one-time collective
agreement charges and inventory write-down provisions. Total cash unit costs for our copper and zinc operations include adjusted cash costs of sales, as described above, plus the
smelter and refining charges added back in determining adjusted revenue. This presentation allows a comparison of total cash unit costs, including smelter charges, to the underlying
price of copper or zinc in order to assess the margin for the mine on a per unit basis. Net cash unit costs: Net cash unit costs of principal product, after deducting co-product and by-
product margins, are also a common industry measure. By deducting the co- and by-product margin per unit of the principal product, the margin for the mine on a per unit basis may
be presented in a single metric for comparison to other operations. Readers should be aware that this metric, by excluding certain items and reclassifying cost and revenue items,
distorts our actual production costs as determined under IFRS. Cash margins for by-products is revenue from by-products and coproducts, less any associated cost of sales of the by-
product and co-product. In addition, for our copper operations, by-product cost of sales also includes cost recoveries associated with our streaming transactions. Adjusted operating
costs for our energy business unit are defined as the costs of product as it leaves the mine, excluding depreciation and amortization charges, cost of diluent for blending to transport
our bitumen by pipeline, cost of non-proprietary product purchased, and transportation costs of our product, and non-proprietary product and any one-time collective agreement
charges or inventory write-down provisions. Operating netbacks per barrel in our energy business unit are calculated as blended bitumen sales revenue net of diluent expenses (also
referred to as bitumen price realized), less Crown royalties, transportation and operating expenses divided by barrels of bitumen sold. We include this information as investors and
investment analysts use it to measure our profitability on a per barrel basis and compare it to similar information provided by other companies in the oil sands industry.

142
(C$ in millions)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Profit attributable to shareholders $ 369 $ 1,281
Add (deduct):
Debt redemption losses - 19
Debt prepayment option (gain) loss - (17)
Gain on sale of Waneta Dam (812)
Taxes and other 34 (5)
Adjusted profit attributable to shareholders $ 403 $ 466
Adjusted basic earnings per share $ 0.72 $ 0.81
Adjusted diluted earnings per share $ 0.72 $ 0.80
Reconciliation of Profit and Adjusted Profit

143
(C$ in millions)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Basic earnings per share $ 0.66 $ 2.23
Add (deduct):
Debt prepayment option loss (gain) - (0.03)
Debt redemption loss - 0.03
Gain on sale of Waneta Dam - (1.41)
Taxes and other 0.06 (0.01)
Adjusted basic earnings per share $ 0.72 $ 0.81
(C$ in millions)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Diluted earnings per share $ 0.66 $ 2.20
Add (deduct):
Debt prepayment option loss (gain) - (0.03)
Debt redemption loss - 0.03
Gain on sale of Waneta Dam - (1.39)
Taxes and other 0.06 (0.01)
Adjusted diluted earnings per share $ 0.72 $ 0.80
Reconciliation of Basic Earnings Per Share to Adjusted Basic Earnings Per Share
Reconciliation of Diluted Earnings Per Share to Adjusted Diluted Earnings Per Share

(C$ in millions)
(A)
Twelve months ended
December 31, 2018
(B)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
(C)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2019
(A-B+C)
Twelve months ended
September 30, 2019
EBITDA $ 6,174 $ 5,022 $ 3,236 (D) $ 4,388
Adjusted EBITDA $ 5,390 $ 4,135 $ 3,604 (E) $ 4,859
Total debt at period end $ 5,519 (F) $ 4,929
Less: cash and cash equivalents at period end (1,734) (1,619)
Net debt $ 3,785 (G) $ 3,310
Equity (H) $ 24,216
Debt to EBITDA ratio (F/D) 1.1
Net debt to EBITDA ratio (G/D) 0.8
Net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio (G/E) 0.7
Net debt to net debt-plus-equity (G/(G+H)) 12%
We include net debt measures as we believe they provide readers with information that allows them to assess our credit capacity and the ability to meet
our short and long-term financial obligations, as well as providing a comparison to our peers. 144
Reconciliation of Net Debt-to-Adjusted EBITDA Ratio & Net Debt-to-Debt-Plus-Equity Ratio

145
Reconciliation of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA
(C$ in millions)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Profit attributable to shareholders $ 369 $ 1,281
Finance expense net of finance income 56 74
Provision for income taxes 171 329
Depreciation and amortization 436 380
EBITDA $ 1,032 $ 2,064
Add (deduct):
Debt prepayment option loss (gain) - (23)
Debt redemption loss - 26
Gain on sale of Waneta Dam - (888)
Taxes and other 48 (15)
Adjusted EBITDA $ 1,080 $ 1,164

146
Energy Business EBITDA by Entity
(C$ in millions)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Reported as: Reported as:
Energy Fort Hills
Other
Energy Energy Fort Hills
Other
Energy
Profit (loss) before taxes $ (2) $ 7 $ (9) $ (24) $ (21) $ (3)
Depreciation and amortization 37 37 - 21 21 -
Finance expense net of finance income 5 5 - 7 7 -
EBITDA $ 40 $ 49 $ (9) $ 4 $ 7 $ (3)

147
Reconciliation of Gross Profit Before Depreciation and Amortization
(C$ in millions)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Gross profit $ 787 $ 1,009
Depreciation and amortization 436 380
Gross profit before depreciation and amortization $ 1,223 $ 1,389
Reported as:
Steelmaking coal (A) $ 628 $ 810
Copper (B) 269 291
Zinc (C) 277 281
Energy (D) 49 7
Gross profit before depreciation and amortization $ 1,223 $ 1,389

148
Reconciliation of Gross Profit Margins Before Depreciation
(C$ in millions)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Revenue
Steelmaking coal (E) $ 1,277 $ 1,505
Copper (F) 601 611
Zinc (G) 902 884
Energy (H) 255 209
Total $ 3,035 $ 3,209
Gross profit margins before depreciation
Steelmaking coal (A/E) 49% 54%
Copper (B/F) 45% 48%
Zinc (C/G) 31% 32%
Energy (D/H)1 19% 3%

1. Average period exchange rates are used to convert to US$ per tonne equivalent.
We include unit cost information as it is frequently requested by investors and investment analysts who use it to assess our cost structure and margins
and compare it to similar information provided by many companies in our industry. 149
Steelmaking Coal Unit Cost Reconciliation
(C$ in millions, except where noted)
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Cost of sales as reported $ 852 $ 871
Less:
Transportation (237) (250)
Depreciation and amortization (203) (176)
Inventory write-down (4) -
Adjusted cash cost of sales $ 408 $ 445
Tonnes sold (millions) 6.1 6.7
Per unit amounts (C$/t)
Transportation 39 37
Inventory write-down 1 -
Cash unit costs (C$/t) $ 107 $ 104
US$ AMOUNTS
Average exchange rate (C$/US$) $ 1.32 $ 1.31
Per unit amounts (US$/t)1
Transportation 29 28
Inventory write-down (1) -
Unit costs (US$/t) $ 81 $ 79

1. Average period exchange rates are used to convert to US$ per pound equivalent.
Copper Unit Cost Reconciliation
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Revenue as reported $ 601 $ 611
By-product revenue (A) (79) (104)
Smelter processing charges (B) 41 36
Adjusted revenue $ 563 $ 543
Less:
Inventory (write-downs) provision reversal (7) -
Labour settlement (8) (1)
By-product cost of sales (C) (12) (15)
Adjusted cash cost of sales (D) $ 305 $ 304
Payable pounds sold (millions) (E) 162.2 148.9
Per unit amounts (C$/lb)
Adjusted cash cost of sales (D/E) $ 1.88 $ 2.04
Smelter processing charges (B/E) 0.25 0.24
Total cash unit costs (C$/lb) $ 2.13 $ 2.28
Cash margin for by-products (C$/lb) ((A-C)/E) (0.41) (0.60)
Net cash unit costs (C$/lb) $ 1.72 $ 1.68
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
US$ AMOUNTS1
Per unit amounts (US$/lb)
Adjusted cash cost of sales $ 1.43 $ 1.56
Smelter processing charges 0.19 0.19
Total cash unit costs (US$/lb) $ 1.62 $ 1.75
Cash margin for by-products (US$/lb) (0.31) (0.46)
Net cash unit costs (US$/lb) $ 1.31 $ 1.29

1. Red Dog and Pend Oreille.
2. Average period exchange rates are used to convert to US$ per pound equivalent.
and compare it to similar information provided by many companies in our industry.
151
Zinc Unit Cost Reconciliation (Mining Operations)1
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Less:
Trail Operations revenues as reported (456) (443)
Other revenues as reported (2) (2)
Add back: Intra-segment revenues as reported 136 154
$ 580 $ 593
By-product revenue (A) (215) (209)
Smelter processing charges (B) 105 59
Adjusted revenue $ 470 $ 443
Less:
Trail Operations cost of sales as reported (476) (479)
Other costs of sales as reported (8) (1)
Add back: Intra-segment as reported 136 154
$ 347 $ 340
Less:
Royalty costs (117) (119)
By-product cost of sales (C) (15) (50)
Adjusted cash cost of sales (D) $ 131 $ 127
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Payable pounds sold (millions) (E) 332.0 298.2
Per unit amounts (C$/lb)
Adjusted cash cost of sales (D/E) $ 0.39 $ 0.43
Smelter processing charges (B/E) 0.32 0.20
Total cash unit costs (C$/lb) $ 0.71 $ 0.63
Cash margin for by-products (C$/lb) ((A-C)/B) (0.49) (0.53)
Net cash unit costs (C$/lb)3 $ 0.22 $ 0.10
US$ AMOUNTS2
Per unit amounts (US$/lb)
Adjusted cash cost of sales $ 0.30 $ 0.33
Smelter processing charges 0.24 0.15
Total cash unit costs (US$/lb) $ 0.54 $ 0.48
Cash margin for by-products (US$/lb) (0.37) (0.41)
Net cash unit costs (US$/lb) $0.17 $0.07

1. Fort Hills financial results included from June 1, 2018.
2. Reflects adjustments for costs not directly attributed to the production of Fort Hills bitumen, including transportation for non-proprietary product
purchased.
Energy Operating Netback1
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Less:
Cost of diluent for blending (79) (66)
Non-proprietary product revenue (7) (18)
Add back: Crown royalties (D) 6 7
Adjusted revenue (A) $ 175 $ 132
Less:
Cash cost of sales $ 206 $ 202
Less:
Cost of diluent for blending (79) (66)
Cost of non-proprietary product purchased (5) (12)
Transportation costs for FRB (C) (30) (24)
Operating cost adjustment2 (1) (3)
Adjusted operating costs (E) $ 91 $ 97

2. Bitumen price realized represents the realized petroleum revenue (blended bitumen sales revenue) net of diluent expense, expressed on a per barrel basis.
Blended bitumen sales revenue represents revenue from our share of the heavy crude oil blend known as Fort Hills Reduced Carbon Life Cycle Dilbit Blend
(FRB), sold at the Hardisty and U.S. Gulf Coast market hubs. FRB is comprised of bitumen produced from Fort Hills blended with purchased diluent. The cost of
blending is affected by the amount of diluent required and the cost of purchasing, transporting and blending the diluent. A portion of diluent expense is effectively
recovered in the sales price of the blended product. Diluent expense is also affected by Canadian and U.S. benchmark pricing and changes in the value of the
Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. 153
Bitumen Price Realized Reconciliation1
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Blended bitumen barrels sold (000’s) 4,240 3,105
Less: diluent barrels included in blended bitumen (000’s) (932) (621)
Bitumen barrels sold (000’s) (B) 3,308 2,484
Per barrel amounts (C$)
Bitumen price realized2 (A/B) $ 52.61 $ 53.41
Crown royalties (D/B) (1.81) (2.90)
Transportation costs for FRB (C/B) (9.16) (9.58)
Adjusted operating costs (E/B) (27.31) (39.04)
Operating netback (C$/barrel) $ 14.33 $ 1.89

154
Blended Bitumen Price Realized Reconciliation1
Three months ended
September 30, 2019
Three months ended
September 30, 2018
Less: Non-proprietary product revenue (7) (18)
Add back: Crown royalties 6 7
Blended bitumen revenue (A) $ 254 $ 198
Blended bitumen barrels sold (000s) (B) 4,240 3,105
Blended bitumen price realized (C$) (A/B)=D1 $ 59.78 $ 63.96
Average exchange rate (C$ per US$1) (C) 1.32 1.31
Blended bitumen price realized (US$/barrel) (D/C) 1 $ 45.26 $ 48.94

(C$ in millions)
2003 to
Q3 2019
Cash Flow from Operations $45,805
Debt interest and finance charges paid (5,394)
Capital expenditures, including capitalized stripping costs (23,939)
Payments to non-controlling interests (NCI) (627)
Free Cash Flow $15,835
Dividends paid $4,354
Payout ratio 27%
155
Reconciliation of Free Cash Flow

Citi Basic Materials Conference

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Citi Basic Materials Conference (20)

More from TeckResourcesLtd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Citi Basic Materials Conference