1. Nordic Mining Seminar – PDAC 2015 Monday March 2 Ken Green, Senior Director, Centre for Natural Resources The Fraser Institute

2. Presentation Outline Survey background and methodology Results of 2014 Survey Areas of weakness Areas of strength Individual policy areas Conclusion

3. Survey Background Rankings compiled from an anonymous annual survey of exploration, development and mining companies –Began with North American jurisdictions in 1997 –Current survey includes 122 valid jurisdictions –Minimum threshold of 10 responses to include results in survey report

4. The 2014 Survey Sent to 4200 executives at exploration, development, and mining consulting companies –Asked to respond only for jurisdictions which they know Responses from 485 executives Representing $2.7 billion in exploration spending in 2014 and $3.2 billion in 2013 122 jurisdictions rated

5. Survey Methodology Survey participants in 15 policy areas –For example, “Taxation Regime” or “Political Stability” –Asked whether deters or encourages investment on a scale of 1-5 Policy Perception Index –A composite index of the 15 policy areas we examined –0 is worst policy; 100 is best

6. 2014 Policy Perception Index Finland

7. 2014 Survey Results Finland ranked 2 nd (PPI 94.7); Sweden 4 th (PPI 92.5); and Norway 18 th (PPI 76.9) Ireland is top-ranked jurisdiction; Alberta and Finland tied 2 nd Also in the top 10 are Sweden, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland & Labrador, Wyoming, Manitoba, and Western Australia Chile tops Latin America globally at 22 nd place Botswana tops in Africa at 13 th overall. The bottom 10: Honduras, Malaysia, Philippines, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, and Venezuela

8. 2014 Results-Finland Ranked 2 nd (PPI of 94.7) Same rank from 2013 –Saw minor declines in the attractiveness of their taxation regime (-7%),infrastructure (- 5%), and concerns over protected areas (- 3%) Areas of strength include: –Security environment (89%) –Geological database (81%) –Political Stability (75%)

9. 2014 Results-Norway Ranked 18 th (PPI of 76.9) A decline of 8 spots from 2013 –Caused by a poorer performance on taxation (-18%), increased trade barriers (-11%), and the availability of labour/skills (-9%). Areas of strength include: –Security environment (80%) –Political stability (65%) –Labour regulations (45%)

10. 2014 Results-Sweden Ranked 4 th (PPI of 92.5) A decline from 1 st in 2013 –Caused by a poorer taxation (-18%), increased trade barriers (-12%), and labour regulations(-9%). Areas of strength include: –Security environment (78%) –Geological database (74%) –Political stability (68%)

11. Relative Rank 2014

12. PPI 2010/11-2014

13. Mineral Potential Global Top 10

14. Individual Policy Areas Here we look at “detriments” to mining. So lower scores indicate mining friendly policy.

15. Uncertainty Concerning Environmental Regulations 2014

16. Taxation Regime (includes personal, corporate, payroll, capital, and other taxes, and complexity of tax compliance) 2014

17. Uncertainty over which Areas will be Protected 2014

18. Conclusion The three Nordic countries continue to have some of the most attractive policies in the world for mining investment

19. All research available at no charge at: www.fraserinstitute.org Thank You! Ken Green ken.green@fraserinstitute.org