37
1 Delivering the Clean Energy of the Future August 2018 Winner of PDAC 2018 Bill Dennis Award For A Canadian Discovery
1
Delivering the Clean Energy of the FutureAugust 2018
Winner of PDAC 2018 Bill Dennis Award For A Canadian
Discovery
2
2
Forward Looking Statement
Information Contained in this Presentation
This presentation is a summary description of NexGen Energy Ltd. (“NexGen” or the “Company”) and its business and does not purport to be complete. This presentation is not, and in no circumstances is to beconstrued as a prospectus, advertisement or a public offering of securities. No securities regulatory authority or similar authority has reviewed or in any way passed upon the document or the merits of the Company’ssecurities and any representation to the contrary is an offence.
Except where otherwise indicated, the information contained in this presentation has been prepared by NexGen and there is no representation or warranty by NexGen or any other person as to the accuracy orcompleteness of the information set forth herein. This presentation includes information on adjacent properties that was obtained from various publicly available sources referred to herein and the accuracy andcompleteness of such information has not been verified by NexGen. Except as otherwise stated, information included in this presentation is given as of the date hereof. The delivery of this presentation shall notimply that the information herein is correct as of any date after the date hereof.
Forward‐Looking Information
The information contained herein contains “forward‐looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and “forward‐looking information” within themeaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. “Forward‐looking information” includes, but is not limited to, statements with respect to the activities, events or developments that the Company expects oranticipates will or may occur in the future, including, without limitation, the completion of the technical report in support of the PEA. Generally, but not always, forward‐looking information and statements can beidentified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “believes” or the negative connotation thereof or variations of suchwords and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved” or the negative connotation thereof.Forward‐looking information and statements are based on the then current expectations, beliefs, assumptions, estimates and forecasts about NexGen’s business and the industry and markets in which it operates.Forward‐looking information and statements are made based upon numerous assumptions, including among others, the results of planned exploration activities are as anticipated, the price of uranium, the cost ofplanned exploration activities, that financing will be available if and when needed and on reasonable terms, that third party contractors, equipment, supplies and governmental and other approvals required toconduct NexGen’s planned exploration activities will be available on reasonable terms and in a timely manner and that general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner.Although the assumptions made by the Company in providing forward‐looking information or making forward‐looking statements are considered reasonable by management at the time, there can be no assurancethat such assumptions will prove to be accurate.
Forward‐looking information and statements also involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, which may cause actual results, performances and achievements of NexGen to differ materiallyfrom any projections of results, performances and achievements of NexGen expressed or implied by such forward‐looking information or statements, including, among others, negative operating cash flow anddependence on third party financing, uncertainty of the availability of additional financing, the risk that pending assay results will not confirm previously announced preliminary results, imprecision of mineral resourceestimates, the appeal of alternate sources of energy and sustained low uranium prices, aboriginal title and consultation issues, exploration risks, reliance upon key management and other personnel, deficiencies in theCompany’s title to its properties, uninsurable risks, failure to manage conflicts of interest, failure to obtain or maintain required permits and licenses, changes in laws, regulations and policy, competition for resourcesand financing, or other approvals, and other factors discussed or referred to in the Company’s Annual Information Form dated March 31, 2017 under “Risk Factors”.
Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in the forward‐looking information or implied by forward‐lookinginformation, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.
There can be no assurance that forward‐looking information and statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated, estimated or intended.Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward‐looking statements or information. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or reissue forward‐looking information as a result of newinformation or events except as required by applicable securities laws.
3
Corporate Overview
4
4
Summary
• NexGen Energy founded in 2011 after extensive 4 year global evaluation process of uranium assets leading to acquisition of Southwest Athabasca Basin project portfolio consisting of over 260,000 hectares today.– Rook I is NexGen’s flagship project which includes the 100% owned Arrow Deposit.– At US$50/lb U3O8 Arrow’s first 5 years of production will generate:
• C$940 million per annum in after‐tax net cash flow,• C$1.3 billion per annum in EBITDA,• 27.6 million pounds of production at US$4.42 per pound operating cost (potentially largest lowest cost
uranium mine),• 90% operating margins.
• Focus on process‐driven approach encompassing elite standards across organization.• Development team in place to optimally bring Arrow into production. • Well positioned as future market leader in the uranium markets.• Financially backed by global investor base of long‐term capital including CEF Holdings (Li Ka Shing).Inferred Mineral Resources in PEAThe PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that PEA results will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
5
5
Current Market Multiples
Source: Capital IQ, TD Securities Inc. (market data as of July 2018)
12.0x
2.6x
2.8x
3.7x
4.2x
5.4x
5.6x
6.5x
6.6x
6.8x
6.9x
13.2x
4.9x
5.9x
6.9x
7.2x
‐ 5.0x 10.0x 15.0x
Cameco
Nexa
Hudbay
KGHM
Teck
Fortescue
First Quantum
Lundin
Boliden
South32
Antofagasta
Southern Copper
Glencore
Vale
BHP
Rio Tinto
14.0x
2.9x
3.1x
3.8x
4.1x
4.4x
4.4x
5.3x
5.4x
6.0x
8.7x
10.1x
5.1x
5.4x
5.6x
6.3x
‐ 5.0x 10.0x 15.0x
Cameco
Nexa
Hudbay
Fortescue
Teck
KGHM
Lundin
Boliden
Antofagasta
South32
First Quantum
Southern Copper
Glencore
Vale
Rio Tinto
BHP
P / 2018E CFPSEV / 2018E EBITDA
Majors
Select Diversifie
d Ba
se M
etal Sen
iors
CCO
4‐7x 5‐8x
6
Uranium Market Overview
Tesla supercharging stations installed in Fort McLeod, AB (population 2,900)
7
7
The Facts
• Countries continue to rely on well diversified domestic energy mixes.• Clean, baseload power required as key component to these energy mixes.• Reliance on coal driven by China and India falling and prevailing trends show renewables and nuclear
consuming coal’s portion of national energy mixes.• Global nuclear utilities most uncovered in recent history
– Estimated 730 million pounds of nuclear fuel (uranium) uncovered by global nuclear utilities over next 7 years.
Source: International Energy Agency 2017 World Energy Outlook
Global population 2040 9 Billion
Energy growth by 2040 50%
Renewables growth by 2040 40%
Nuclear growth by 2040 40%
8
8
Return to Reliance on Nuclear
• Uranium spot and mid‐term markets do not reflect fundamental industry cost curves.
• Uranium forecasts currently do not reflect economic fundamentals of industry cost curves.
• Currently in 8th year of uranium bear market which has resulted in structural, permanent changes to mine supply.
• Industry will revert to reflect fundamentals again and will normalize.
9
9
Changing Energy Mix
66%
3%
18%
13%
2006 N.A. Energy Mix
Natural Gas & Coal Renewables Nuclear Hydro
55%
14%
18%
13%
2016 N.A. Energy Mix
Natural Gas & Coal Renewables Nuclear Hydro
• Largest global economies changing their national power sources to address air pollution challenges and global warming concerns.
• In developed economies such as North America (“N.A.”), reliance on coal shrinking rapidly in favor of renewables with nuclear maintaining 18% portion.– In developing economies such as China, need for power from all large‐scale, cost effective and baseload
sources growing.
Source: International Energy Agency 2017 World Energy Outlook
10
10
EVs Require Even More Power
• Tesla – 500,000 EVs annually by 2018 versus 84,000 in 2016.
• Volkswagen – 15‐20% of global sales to be EVs by 2025 offering over 80 models.
• Ford – Spending $11 billion by 2020 to develop 40 new EV models. 70% of all Ford’s sold in China to be electric by 2025.
• BMW – 25 new EVs by 2025 and ensuring all factories capable of producing EVs by 2020 in anticipation of global take‐up.
• Porsche – Doubling investment in EVs by 2022 with entire range of EV options. Spending US$7.5 billion over next 5 years.
• India, France and UK ‐ targeting ban on sale of internal combustion engines by 2030 and 2040, respectively.
Source: Company Reports, Tesla, Engineering & Technology
11
Arrow Development
12
12
Future Uranium District
• Focused in Southwest Athabasca Basin which is a future strategic source of uranium.• Largest land holder in this district with over 260,000 hectares held by NexGen.• 95% underexplored which offer unpriced optionality.
13
13
The Arrow Advantage
Sandstone‐hosted deposits (egress type) tend to have challenges due to the mineralization being ‘perched’ within the unconsolidated and wet Athabasca Sandstone unit requiring freezing.
Arrow is a basement‐hosted Deposit (ingress type) which will not require freezing to extract due to competent ground setting.
100 m
10 m
14
14
Strategic Global Positioning
27.2 28.4 27.7 27.6 27.0 24.9 20.7 19.1
12.8 12.3 10.6 8.9 8.4 8.3 3.2
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
‐
10.0
20.0
30.0
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15
Hea
d Grade
(% U3O
8)
(M lb
s U3O
8)
Recovered Uranium
Recovered U3O8 Head Grade
Global Uranium Producers
Company Annual Production (Mlbs U3O8) % of Global Supply
28.6 24%
27.6 23%19.8 16%
17.4 14%
9.0* 7%
7.1 6%
5.9 5%
5.4 4%
Source: Data published by World Nuclear Association (2016). Asset production shown on total basis as at the end of 2015.NexGen production shown is based on projected average production over first 5 years.
See disclosures on pages 2, 4, 15 and 35
15
15
Positive PEA ResultsPEA Financial Highlights
After‐Tax Net Present Value (NPV8%) CAD $3.49 BillionAfter‐Tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 56.7%After‐Tax Payback 1.1 YearsPre‐production Capital Costs (CAPEX) CAD $1.19 Billion
Average Annual Production (Years 1‐5) 27.6 M lbs U3O8
Average Annual Production (Life of Mine) 18.5 M lbs U3O8
Mine Life 14.4 YearsAverage Unit Operating Cost (Years 1‐5) CAD $5.53 (US $4.42)/lb U3O8
Average Unit Operating Cost (Life of Mine) CAD $8.37 (US $6.70)/lb U3O8
Uranium Price Assumption USD $50/lb U3O8
Saskatchewan Royalties (Life of Mine) CAD $2.98 Billion
Uranium Price ($ USD/lb U3O8)
After‐Tax NPV After‐Tax IRR After‐Tax Pay Back
$80/lb U3O8 CAD $6.45 Billion 82.3% 0.7 Years
$60/lb U3O8 CAD $4.48 Billion 65.9% 0.9 Years
$50/lb U3O8 CAD $3.49 Billion 56.7% 1.1 Years$40/lb U3O8 CAD $2.49 Billion 46.2% 1.4 Years
$30/lb U3O8 CAD $1.50 Billion 34.1% 1.9 Years
$25/lb U3O8 CAD $1.00 Billion 27.0% 2.4 Years
Inferred Mineral Resources in PEAThe PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that PEA results will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
16
16
Resilient Project Economics
• Project economics are insensitive to capital and operating cost inflation given large operating margins and annual cash flow generation.
See disclosures on pages 2, 4, 15 and 35
17
17
A Win-Win
‐
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
‐
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15
Cumulative C$
'000
C$ '000
By Ye
ar
Arrow Deposit PEA ‐ Government Revenue
Gross Revenue Royalty Profit Royalties SK Corporate Income Tax
Federal Corporate Income Tax Personal Income Taxes (Prov) Personal Income Taxes (Fed)
Cumulative Total Value to Government
• Potential of $5.9 Billion in total Government Revenue over the life of asset.
• Potential of $4.3 Billion in Saskatchewan Government revenue over the life of asset.
See disclosures on pages 2, 4, 15 and 35
18
18
Surface Summary
19
19
Underground Summary
• Conventional underground mining methods envisioned utilizing longitudinal and transverse stopes.
• Enables relatively simple extraction and processing with constant emphasis on highest level safety and environmental measures.
20
20
Leading Edge Environmental Techniques
• Set new standard in environmental protection and sustainability in mining industry.
• Envision utilizing leading edge, proven techniques including underground tailings management (“UGTMF”) as well as many other innovations.
21
21
Conventional Mining and Milling
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
‐
100
200
300
400
500
600
Yr 1Yr 2Yr 3Yr 4Yr 5Yr 6Yr 7Yr 8Yr 9 Yr10
Yr11
Yr12
Yr13
Yr14
Yr15
U3O
8 Grade
Process T
hrou
ghpu
t (ktpa
)
Process Schedule
Processed Tonnes Head Grade
Conventional processing facility:
1. Crushing and Grinding2. Acid Leaching (8 hour leach cycle)3. Liquid‐Solid Separation via
Counter Current Decantation (CCD)
4. Solvent Extraction5. Yellowcake Precipitation6. Paste Tailings Plant
22
22
Conservative Build Up of Costs
Pre‐Production Capital Summary C$ '000 US$ '000
Underground Mining
UG Mobile Equipment 32,082 25,666
UG Fixed Equipment 55,355 44,284
Horizontal Development 41,186 32,949
Vertical Development 168,576 134,861
Capitalized Pre‐Production Operating Costs 26,934 21,547
Indirect ‐ Mining Equipment 22,245 17,796
Indirects ‐ Mine Development 71,529 57,223
Contingency ‐ Mine Equipment 27,420 21,936
Contingency ‐ Mine Development 70,323 56,258
Total Pre‐Production Mining Capital Costs 515,649 412,519
Processing
Process Plant 233,008 186,406
Process Infrastructure 10,880 8,704
Indirects ‐ Processing 95,678 76,542
Contingency ‐ Processing 90,678 72,542
Total Pre‐Production Processing Capital Costs 430,244 344,195
Infrastructure
Pre‐Production Infrastructure 143,099 114,480
Indirects ‐ Infrastructure 51,516 41,213
Contingency ‐ Infrastructure 48,654 38,923
Total Pre‐Production Infrastructure 243,269 194,615
Total Pre‐Production Capital
Pre‐Production Mining 515,649 412,519
Pre‐Production Processing 430,244 344,195
Pre‐Production Infrastructure 243,269 194,615
Total Pre‐Production Capital 1,189,161 951,329
23
23
Timeline
H1/2018
•Winter drill program testing regional scale (completed).• Bulk metallurgical testing, engineering compilation work (completed).• Summer drill program designed for development and near‐Arrow exploration.
H2/2018
•Results from summer drill program (ongoing).•Maiden Pre‐Feasibility Study including an Updated Mineral Resource Estimate (Q3/2018).
• Environmental baseline compilation work in support of EIS (Q4/2018).
2019+• Submit Project Description to Government and initiate EA process.•Definition drilling in support of future Feasibility Studies.
24
Rook I Exploration
25
25
Dominant Strategic Land Position
• NexGen holds over 260,000 hectares of prospective exploration ground in the southwest Athabasca Basin.
• Rook I will remain focus and, specifically, the Patterson Corridor which currently hosts nearly 10 uranium discoveries over a 14 km strike length.
26
26
Recent Results Highlight Growth
• New shear discovered called “A0”
• New intense mineralization discover 160 m northwest of A0 shear
• Material expansion of the A1 and A2 shears along strike to northwest and southwest.
• 2018 summer program to focus on following up exciting growth prospects as well as development drilling.
27
27
Endowed Mineral Belt
• Systematically drill testing regional geological model to optimize potential.
• Drilling proximal –within 2 km radius ‐to Arrow will remain high priority
• Maintaining optionality with strategic land position.
28
Community Relations
29
29
Community Relations
• NexGen is committed to building strong relationships with local Saskatchewan communities and stakeholders.
• The Three Pillars seen here are implemented to build a strong, lasting foundation within the community by supporting NexGen’s Vision.
Economic DevelopmentEconomic
Development
HealthHealth
EducationEducation
30
30
Contact Information
For more information please visit: www.nexgenenergy.ca or contact:
Travis McPherson – Vice President Corporate Development Phone: +1.604.428.4112
Email: tmcpherson@nxe‐energy.ca
31
31
Appendix
32
32
Capital StructureShares Issued 346,868,068
Fully Diluted 382,976,401
Cash ~C$136 million
Insider Ownership 5%
Shareholders • CEF Holdings (Li Ka‐shing)• Global X Management• CI Investments• 1832 Asset Management• Blackrock (UK)• Connor Clark & Lunn• Segra Capital Management LLC• CQS Management Ltd.• Haywood Securities
OptionsCEF Conversion
36,108,40148,083,337
Cash & Share Structure as at August 1, 2018
33
33
Senior Executives
Name Experience
Leigh CuryerCEO
• Chartered Accountant with over 20 years experience and ex‐CFO of Southern Cross Resources (now Uranium One)
• Managed exploration, feasibility and permitting of Honeymoon Uranium Project in South Australia
• Former‐Head Corporate Development at Accord Nuclear Resources Management assessing global uranium assets for First Reserve International
Bruce SpragueCFO
• Former‐Partner, Canadian Mining and Metals Sector for Ernst & Young with over 25 years of experience
• Led key client teams for some the largest Canada‐based mining companies on strategic business initiatives and growth platforms
Travis McPherson VP Corporate Development
• Former‐Head Corporate Development for TSX‐listed gold producer• Former‐Investment Baking at independent Canadian natural resources boutique• M&A, debt and equity, permitting, budgeting and corporate strategy experience
34
34
Project Development Team
Name Experience
James Hatley, P.Eng.SVP, Project Development
• Professional engineer with +25 years experience in metals and mining• Former‐Senior Geotechnical Engineer at Cigar Lake, Chief Mine Engineer of
McArthur River Operations, Superintendent Resource Development at McArthur River, Director, McArthur River Expansion.
Troy BoisjoliVP Operations and Project Development
• Geologist with +10 years experience in uranium exploration, operations, mining and mineral resource estimation in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan
• Former‐Chief Geologist at underground Eagle Point Uranium mine for Cameco
Shawn HarrimanSenior Manager, Permitting, Environment and Regulatory Affairs
• Environmental scientist with +10 years experience at Cameco most recently as Superintendent, Safety, Health, Radiation, Environment, Quality and Regulatory Affairs where he directly liaised with Provincial and Federal Regulators
• Experience in implementing and managing environmental monitoring and protection programs and ISO14001 certified environmental management systems at an operational level
Adam EngdahlSr. Project Manager, Operations and Project Development
• Geologist with +10 years of experience in mining sector • Formerly with Claude Resources Inc, integral role in the expansion and
delineation of the Santoy Gap gold deposit – now SSR Mining’s richest gold deposit
35
35
Board of Directors
Name Experience
Christopher McFadden (Chairman)
• Lawyer with +20 years experience in exploration and mining• Commercial General Manger for Rio Tinto
Richard Patricio • Lawyer with +15 years capital markets experience• CEO and President of Mega Uranium
Trevor J. Thiele • Chartered Accountant with +30 years experience in capital markets• CFO of major Australian Agribusinesses (Elders and Viterra)
Craig Parry • Geologist ex‐Rio Tinto, Oxiana Limited and G‐Resources• Founding member of Tigers Realm Group
Warren Gilman • Chairman and CEO, CEF Holdings Ltd. • Mining engineer with over 25 years experience running CIBC mining investment
bank
36
36
Advisory Board
Charles Scorer(Uranium Marketing)
• Over 25 years commercial and operational experience in nuclear fuel market• Founder and ex‐CEO of Nufcor International
Andrew Browne (Technical Advisory Head)
• Uranium geologist with +43 years experience• Key member of exploration teams at Jabiluka and Ranger 1 No. 3 Deeps
37
37
End NotesTechnical DisclosureThe scientific and technical information in this presentation with respect to the PEA has been reviewed and approved by David Robson, P.Eng., M.B.A. and Jason Cox, P.Eng. of RPA, each of whom is a “qualified person” under National Instrument 43‐101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43‐101”). All other scientific and technical information in this presentation has been approved by Mr. Troy Boisjoli, P.Geo., Vice President – Operations & Project Development for NexGen. Mr. Boisjoli is a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43‐101 and has verified the sampling, analytical, and test data underlying the information or opinions contained herein by reviewing original data certificates and monitoring all of the data collection protocols.
Inferred Mineral Resources in PEAThe PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized asmineral reserves. There is no certainty that PEA results will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Technical ReportThe mineral resource estimate referred to herein was announced by the Company on March 6th, 2017, and has an effective date of December 20, 2016. For details of the Rook I Project including the quality assuranceprogram and quality control measures applied and key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate the mineral resource set forth herein please refer to the technical report entitled “Technical Report onthe Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Arrow Deposit, Rook 1 Property, Province of Saskatchewan, Canada” dated effective July 31, 2017 (the “Rook 1 Technical Report”). The Rook I Technical Report is availableon NexGen’s issuer profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and EDGAR (www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml).
SEC StandardsEstimates of mineralization and other technical information included or referenced in this presentation have been prepared in accordance with NI 43‐101. The definitions of proven and probable mineral reservesused in NI 43‐101 differ from the definitions in SEC Industry Guide 7. Under SEC Industry Guide 7 standards, a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study is required to report reserves, the three‐year historical average priceis used in any reserve or cash flow analysis to designate reserves and the primary environmental analysis or report must be filed with the appropriate governmental authority. As a result, the reserves reported by theCompany in accordance with NI 43‐101 may not qualify as “reserves” under SEC standards. In addition, the terms “mineral resource”, “measured mineral resource”, “indicated mineral resource” and “inferred mineralresource” are defined in and required to be disclosed by NI 43‐101; however, these terms are not defined terms under SEC Industry Guide 7 and normally are not permitted to be used in reports and registrationstatements filed with the SEC. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of the mineral deposits in thesecategories will ever be converted into reserves. “Inferred mineral resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot beassumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian securities laws, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility orpre‐feasibility studies, except in rare cases. Additionally, disclosure of “contained ounces” in a resource is permitted disclosure under Canadian securities laws; however, the SEC normally only permits issuers to reportmineralization that does not constitute “reserves” by SEC standards as in place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measurements. Accordingly, information contained or referenced in this presentationcontaining descriptions of the Company’s mineral deposits may not be comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of United States federalsecurities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Non‐IFRS Measures
This presentation refers to cash costs, which measurement has no standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. These measurements are intendedto provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.
