November 2012 Investor Update

1. BUILDING QUÉBEC’S FIRST DIAMOND MINE
Update, May 14th 2012
Matt Manson Pat Godin
President and CEO COO

2. 2
Forward-Looking Information
This presentation contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation and “forward-looking statements”
within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This information and these statements, referred to herein
as “forward-looking statements”, are made as of the date of this presentation and the Company does not intend, and does not assume any
obligation, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law.
Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect current expectations or beliefs regarding future events and
include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to: (i) the amount of mineral resources and exploration targets; (ii) the amount of future
production over any period; (iii) net present value and internal rates of return of the mining operation; (iv) capital costs and operating costs; (v) mine
expansion potential and expected mine life; (vi) expected time frames for completion of permitting and regulatory approvals and making a
production decision; (vii) future exploration plans; (viii) future market prices for rough diamonds; and (ix) sources of and anticipated financing
requirements. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives,
assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “plans”, “projects”,
“estimates”, “assumes”, “intends”, “strategy”, “goals”, “objectives” or variations thereof or stating that certain actions, events or results “may”,
“could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements
of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements are made based upon certain assumptions and other important factors that, if untrue, could cause the actual results,
performances or achievements of Stornoway to be materially different from future results, performances or achievements expressed or implied by
such statements. Such statements and information are based on numerous assumptions regarding present and future business strategies and the
environment in which Stornoway will operate in the future, including the price of diamonds, anticipated costs and ability to achieve goals. Certain
important factors that could cause actual results, performances or achievements to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements
include, but are not limited to: (i) estimated completion date for the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment; (ii) required capital investment
and estimated workforce requirements; (iii) estimates of net present value and internal rates of return; (iv) receipt of regulatory approvals on
acceptable terms within commonly experienced time frames; (v) the assumption that a production decision will be made, and that decision will be
positive; (vi) anticipated timelines for the commencement of mine production; (vii) anticipated timelines related to the Route 167 extension and the
impact on the development schedule at Renard; (viii) anticipated timelines for community consultations and the conclusion of an Impact and
Benefits Agreement; (ix) market prices for rough diamonds and the potential impact on the Renard Project’s value; and (x) future exploration plans
and objectives. Additional risks are described in Stornoway's most recently filed Annual Information Form, annual and interim MD&A, and other
disclosure documents available under the Company’s profile at: www.sedar.com.
When relying on our forward-looking statements to make decisions with respect to Stornoway, investors and others should carefully consider the
foregoing factors and other uncertainties and potential events. Stornoway does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, whether
written or oral, that may be made from time to time by Stornoway or on our behalf, except as required by law.

3. 3
Stornoway’s Board and Management Team
Additional Management
Robin Hopkins, VP Exploration
Dave Skelton, VP Project Development
Ghislain Poirier, VP Public Affairs
Matt Manson Pat Godin Zara Boldt Guy Bourque, Chief Mining Engineer
President, CEO COO & Director CFO and VP
& Director Finance Nick Thomas, Manager, Investor Relations
Michel Blouin John LeBoutillier
Tony Walsh Independent/ Yves Harvey Independent/
Chairman IQ Designate Independent IQ Designate
Monique Mercier
Independent/ Peter Nixon Ebe Scherkus Serge Vézina
IQ Designate Independent Agnico-Eagle Independent

4. 4
Why Stornoway?
100% Ownership in Renard:
One of the World’s Best Development
Stage Diamond Projects
In Québec, one of the World’s Best
Mining Jurisdictions
Renard
Strong Feasibility Base Case Economics
Extensive Resource Upside
Diamonds
Excellent Long Term Fundamentals
Few New Mining Projects
Stornoway
Experienced Team
Strong Québec Backing

5. 5
Renard Kimberlite Bodies
0 1 2
Kilometers
N
60 0 60 120
Kilometers
Laforge 2
Laforge 1
R10 Brisay
LG4
LG2
R7 LG3
Foxtrot Property
Hibou R1
Eleonore
Wemindji Renard
R65 Western Troy Eastmain Mine
R4 Strateco
R8
R9 R3 Troilus Mine
R2 Temiscamie
Lynx Mistissini
Matagami
Chibougamau
Kimberlite Bodies with
Probable Reserves
Legend
LEGEND:
Kimberlite Bodies with Stornoway Properties HydroQuébec
Inferred Resources HydroQuébec Facility Powerlines
Renard Kimberlites Route 167 Extension
Kimberlite Bodies with Road
Kimberlitic Dyke
Resource Potential Exploration/ Mining
Regional Kimberlites
Projects

6. 6
Summary of Feasibility Results
Released November 16th, 2011
Valuation
NPV7% and IRR of C$672m and 18.7% (Pre-Tax) and C$376m and 14.9% (After-Tax)
Mining and Production Parameters
11 year reserve-based mine life
Peak diamond production reaching 2.1Mcarats per year, averaging 1.7Mcarats over LOM, and
at a weighted average US$180/carat
Operating cash flow of C$2.7B
Costs
Initial Capital Cost Estimate of C$802m including contingencies
LOM Operating Cost Estimate of C$54.71/tonne (C$70.27/carat) giving a 68% operating margin
Reserves and Resources1
Probable Mineral Reserve of 18.0 Mcarats (23.1Mtonnes at an average 78 cpht)
Inferred Mineral Resources of 17.5 Mcarats (31.1Mtonnes at an average 56 cpht)
Key Assumptions
C$1=US$1, Oil US$90/barrel, 2.5% real terms diamond price growth Q311-Q425, 83.5% ore recovery, 19.4% mining dilution, 0cpht
dilution grade, January 1 2012 effective date for NPV and IRR calculation.
1
Reserve and Resource categories are compliant with the "CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do
not have demonstrated economic viability.

7. 7
General Project Arrangement
Small Footprint of 3.1km2
Processed Kimberlite
Containment (PKC)
R65
Waste Rock
R2-R3 Overburden
Stockpile
Plant
Ore Stockpile
Camp
Route 167 Extension

8. 8
Mine Plan
A Combined Open Pit and Underground Mine
Open Pit Mining at Renard 2 & 3
Renard 65
(years 1-2)
Underground Mining Renard 2,
3 & 4 (years 3-11)
Blast Hole Shrinkage with waste
backfill from pits.
Ramp & shaft access
6,000 tpd plant capacity, Renard 3
(2.2mtonnes/annum).
Pit at Renard 65 (initially) as a borrow-
pit and waste water sump, pending
resource conversion. Renard 4
Renard 2
Renard 3
Renard 2

9. 9
Production and Revenue Schedule
Open Pit & Underground Mining
Schedule (Ktonnes of Ore) Plant Feed (Ktonnes)
2,500 2,500
2,000 2,000
R4 UG
1,500 R3 UG 1,500 R4
1,000 R2 UG 1,000 R3
500 R3 Pit 500 R2
- R2 Pit -
2019
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Carat Production (Kcarats) Gross Revenue (C$M, Real)
2,500 600.0
2,000 500.0
400.0
1,500 R4 R4
300.0
1,000 R3 R3
200.0
500
R2 R2
100.0
- -
2023
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2024
2025
2026
2018
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

10. 10
Long Term Business Plan
Stornoway has also developed a Long Term Business
Plan (“LTBP”) based on the Project’s total Indicated and
Inferred Mineral Resources to a depth of 700m.
This material is within the scope of the mine
infrastructure costed within the Feasibility Study, and
includes 6.1 Mcarats of high grade Inferred Mineral
Resources between 600-700 meters depth in Renard 2.
The LTBP also contemplates an increased production
rate within the scope of the process plant’s design
parameters, which allows for expansion up to 7,000
tonnes per day (2.6 Mtonnes/annum).
Expansion mill feed is expected to be derived from the A 4 carat, top quality diamond
open pit on the Renard 65 kimberlite. recovered from Renard 65 drillcore
Although highly accretive, the project’s Inferred Mineral
Resources are not included in the Feasibility Study
economic analysis in accordance with NI 43-101.
The LTBP is the basis of the Renard mine permit
application, and as such will form part of the project’s
public disclosure in connection with the environmental
assessment regulatory process under applicable federal
and provincial legislation.

11. 11
Renard NI 43-101 Mineral Reserves and Resource
Resource announced January 24th, 2011. Reserve announced November 16th, 2011
PROBABLE RESERVE Renard 65
29cpht
Drill Delineated Renard 3
Micro/Macro Diamond Sampling Renard 2 106/118cpht
103/118cpht
Bulk Sampling for Value
18 million carats
Renard 4
53/44cpht Renard 9
INFERRED RESOURCE 47cpht
Lower Resolution Drilling,
or no Bulk Sample
17 million carats
EXPLORATION UPSIDE
Lower Resolution Diamond
Sampling, or no Drilling.
24 - 49 million carats
Notes: Grades illustrated are for Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources respectively at a +1DTC sieve size cut-off. Reserve and Resource categories are compliant with the "CIM Definition
Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The potential quantity and grade of any Exploration
Target (previously referred to as a “Potential Mineral Deposit”) is conceptual in nature, and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.

12. Renard’s Resource Upside
12
A Project with a Long Resource Tail and Very Long Mine Life Potential
Millions
(Tonnes, Carats, $)
140 140
Expenditures ($)
120 120
Carats (IND+INF)
Tonnes “Conceptual” The Vision: Deposit still
100 100 Open
Tonnes PMD High
Tonnes PMD Low
80 Tonnes Inferred Resource 80
Tonnes Indicated Resource
60 Tonnes Probable Reserve 60
Permitting and Long
Term Business Plan
40 40
20 20 The Feasibility: 11
years of mining
0 0
2001-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009 2011
Notes: Reserve and Resource categories are compliant with the "CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are not
mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The potential quantity and grade of any Exploration Target (previously referred to as a “Potential
Mineral Deposit”) is conceptual in nature, and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.

13. 13
Renard Diamond Valuation
Conducted by WWW International Diamond Consultants Ltd. May 8th-13th, 2011
Renard kimberlite pipes have a diamond population with a coarse size distribution and high proportion
of large white gems. Lynx and Hibou kimberlite dykes have a finer distribution of browner stones.
99% by weight gem/near-gem quality. 1% industrial quality boart.
Coarse size distribution: potential for significant “Specials”, not accounted for in the current resource
work. (Three to six 50-100ct stones and one to two +100ct stones every 100,000 carats.)
Implied grade loss through sampling breakage 15%-38%, not accounted for in the current resource
work
Renard 3 Bulk Sample Stones larger
than 2 carats. “Run of Mine”
Size of Largest May 2011
Kimberlite Valuation Diamonds Diamond Sensitivities
Body Sample Recovered Price (Minimum to High)
(carats) (carats) (US$/carat)1
Renard 2 1,580 15.46, 8.80, 8.42 $163 to $236
Renard 3 2,753 10.15, 7.78, 6.36
$182 $153 to $205
Renard 4 2,674 5.92, 5.74, 3.99 $1122 $105 to $185
Lynx Dyke 535 21.53, 5.36, 5.34 $119 $99 to $144
Hibou Dyke 772 3.14, 3.07, 2.72 $118 $88 to $136
1
Based on an average of five independent valuations conducted between May 9th and 13th 2011, and supervised by
WWW International Diamond Consultants Limited.
2
The Renard NI 43-101 compliant Mineral Resource of January 2011 and the Feasibility Study of November 2011
utilize a higher diamond price based on an analysis of diamond breakage and poor plant recovery of the Renard 4
valuation sample, which is $164/carat. All samples utilize a +0.85mm (+1 DTC) cutoff

14. 14
Permitting and Development Schedule
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2H 1H 2H 1H 2H 1H 2H 1H 2H
BFS (Complete)
ESIA (Complete)
Community Hearings
COMEX and CEAA Review
Specific Mine Permits (50)
Detailed Engineering
Project Financing
Road Construction First Vehicle Access
Mine Construction
Commissioning and Ramp-up
Commercial Production

15. 15
Infrastructure: Power and Road Access
A Canadian Diamond Project with an All Season Highway and Potential Grid Power
Road: The Québec Ministry of Transportation
“Route 167 Extension”, connecting Renard to Route 167 Extension Hydro Facility
Caniapiscau
the provincial highway to the south. Existing Winter Road Existing Hydro Line
Stornoway Claims Potential Hydro Line
Initial road construction cost of $332m will Mining/Exploration Projects
be funded by Québec. Stornoway will Laforge 2
contribute $44m amortized over 10 years, Brisay
starting in 2015. Additional Industry Laforge 1
contributions expected. LG4
LG2 LG3
Mirage Potential
Road construction commenced January Camp Powerline
2012. Vehicle access is expected to be
available to the Renard site to commence
project construction by mid-2013. Eleonore Renard
(Goldcorp)
McLeod Lake
Power: Separate feasibility study on a 165km (Western Troy)
Eastmain
161kV powerline connecting Renard to the Eastmain 1
(Eastmain)
Laforge-1 generating station is ongoing. Route 167 Matoush
Extension (Strateco)
The powerline would add capital cost to the (268km) Existing
Winter Road
project but offers substantial operating cost
savings. Troilus Temiscamie
(Inmet)
Hydro-Québec expect to complete their Mistissini
study in 2012, and the impact of the 60 0 60 120
powerline on the Renard Diamond Project Kilometers
Chibougamau Scale: 1:3,000,000
will be assessed at that time.

16. 16
Environment and Permitting
Comprehensive ESIA filed in December 2011
The Renard Project is under the environmental protection
regime of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement
(“JBNQA”) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
Stornoway filed the Renard Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment (“ESIA”) with Quebec and federal
regulators in December 2011.
Subject to a schedule established by the Review
Committee of the JBNQA and the federal regulator, it is
expected that public hearings on the project will
commence in June 2012, with the project becoming
eligible for its Certificates of Authorization thereafter.
The Renard ESIA describes a limited-footprint project with
modest impacts on the local environment, all of which are
well within existing Québec and federal standards.
During the course of the Renard ESIA, an Environmental
Exchange group met regularly in Mistissini, giving a forum
for the exchange of environmental and traditional
knowledge, and direct input on project design.
Stornoway has published the complete ESIA, the
Environmental Baseline Study, and the project Closure
Plan online.

17. The “Mecheshoo” Agreement (IBA)
17
Renard’s Social Licence. Signed March 2012
The Renard Diamond Project is situated close to the
Cree Nation of Mistissini (CNM) and the mining
community of Chibougamau.
Stornoway and its predecessor companies have
conducted extensive community consultations in
Mistissini since 2001 on the basis of respect,
transparency and full regulatory compliance.
In March 2012 Stornoway concluded an Impacts and
Benefits Agreement, the “Mecheshoo Agreement”, with
the CNM and the Grand Council of the Crees (EI).
The Mecheshoo Agreement provides for employment
and business opportunities for the Crees, fosters
cultural, environmental and social protection, and
provides for the Crees’ participation in the project’s long
From left: Chief Richard Shecapio, of the Cree Nation of
term financial success. Mistissini, Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come, of the Crees of
Eeyou Itschee, and Matt Manson, CEO of Stornoway, in
“Stornoway has demonstrated an immense Mistissini on March 27th, 2012, on the occasion of the signing of
the Mecheshoo Agreement.
openness and has been willing to adapt the
project in a manner that respects the Crees
of Mistissini, our interests, our values, our
culture and our way of life. This is the way
we want to be dealt with.” Chief Richard
Shecapio, CNM, March 2012.

18. Québec’s “Plan Nord”: Launched May 9th 2011
18
One of the World’s Best Mining Jurisdictions
The Renard Diamond Project is at the
center of the Plan Nord, the visionary
initiative to sustainably develop Québec
north of the 49th parallel through
infrastructure investment, community
development and biodiversity
conservation.
Investments include:
$1.2b for infrastructure projects, including
the Route 167 Extension
$434m for social measures
$500m for direct investments through
Investissement Québec Jean Charest, Premier of Québec, and Matt Manson, CEO of Stornoway, in
Chibougamau on August 1st for the announcement of Route 167 Extension
The “Route 167 Extension” and Financing Agreement. Mr. Charest is holding core from Renard 65 containing a
four-carat diamond.
Investissement Québec’s investment in
Stornoway are key planks of the Plan

19. 19
Stornoway’s Project Pipeline
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves
Stornoway possess a strong pipeline do not have demonstrated economic viability.
The potential quantity and grade of any non-
of advanced and grassroots resource potential mineral deposit” (“PMD”) is
conceptual in nature, and it is uncertain if
exploration projects. further exploration will result in the target
being delineated as a mineral resource.
Internal growth opportunities through
the advanced Aviat and Qilalugaq
Aviat (90%)
Projects. Qilalugaq (100%) Advanced Project
Advanced Project 24-40 mcarats “PMD”
2012 focus: new projects in
Saskatchewan (“Pikoo”) and Québec
(“AEON”) following up pre-2008
indicator anomalies: potential for new
kimberlite cluster close to
infrastructure.
Stornoway will continue to progress
its grassroots exploration projects as Pikoo (100%)
it works to develop Renard. Grassroots Exploration
Renard (100%)
NI 43-101 Resource
AEON (100%) 24 mcarats Indicated
Grassroots 17 mcarats Inferred
Exploration 24-49 mcarats “PMD”

20. 20
Stornoway’s Platform for Project Development and Financing
BALANCE SHEET*
ANALYST COVERAGE
Market Capitalization:
C$ 140 million
(based on voting and non-voting shares)h RBC
Outperform-
Total Shares Outstanding: Des Kilalea, $2.05
161.2 million Speculative Risk
(Basic and Non-voting convertible shares) January 11th, 2012
Raymond James
Total Options & Warrants Outstanding: 31.2 million Bart Jaworski Outperform $2.50
Nov 21st, 2011
Cash and Short Term Deposits: Paradigm
C$ 47.3 million
(as of April 30th, 2012 and May 4th Financing) David Davidson Buy $3.15
Nov 17th, 2011
Debt:
C$ 20 million
($100m Standby Facility with IQ undrawn) BMO
Fully Ed Sterck Market Perform $1.50
PRO-FORMA SHAREHOLDING* Basic
Diluted Nov 17th, 2011
(common shares) 25.0% Desjardins
IQ** 33.7% Brian Christie Speculative Buy $2.00
(non-voting convertible shares) --------
Nov 17th, 2011
Agnico-Eagle 10.6% 8.9% Laurentian
Rio Tinto plc 4.5% 3.5% Eric Lemieux Buy $3.00
May 7th, 2012
Lorito Holdings (Lundin Family) 3.1% 2.4%
National Bank
Outperform-
Float 56.8% 51.5% Eldon Brown $2.05
Speculative Risk
March 9th, 2012
Notes: Debt Facility: In December 2010, Stornoway announced a $100 million Credit Support Agreement with a subsidiary of Société générale de financement du Québec, now Investissment
Québec, with respect to future project debt financing. The Credit Support Agreement has an annual commitment fee of 175 bps undrawn, and will take the form of a direct project loan ranking
pari passu with concurrent senior lenders or, as appropriate, on a stand alone basis on terms no less favourable than prevailing commercially reasonable market terms.
*Based on market close of $0.87 on May 10 2012.
**IQ: Investissement Québec, the Québec government's industrial and financial holding company whose mission is to foster the growth of investment in Québec, thereby contributing to
economic development and job creation in every region

21. 21
Project Comparables
Diamond Industry Cost Curve (Anglo American November 2011 after De Beers 2010)
COST/REVENUE
2.0
Gahcho Kue (development project)
10.5
Cost/revenue (x)
Renard with Powerline
Namedeo operations
Snap lake
1.0
Damtshaa
Renard
Orapa
Venetia
Jwaneng
0.5
0.0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Cumulative revenue (US$m)
Source: Anglo-American (After De Beers, November 2011), and Stornoway Estimates

22. 22
Value Creation Through Project Financing
Aber Diamond Corporation, 1995-2007
Feasibility Study
July 1999- Market Low

23. 23
Appendix 1: Diamond Market Overview

24. 24
Major Diamond Mines and Development Projects Worldwide
Few Enough Mines to Fit on One Map
Canada
• Ekati (BHPB)
• Diavik (Rio Tinto/Harry Winston) Russia
• Victor, Snap Lake, Gahcho Kue (De Beers) • Arkhangelsk District (Alrosa)
• Renard (Stornoway) • Yakutia District (Alrosa)
• Star (Shore Gold/Newmont) • Grib (LUKOIL)
India
• Bundar (Rio Tinto)
Australia
Sierra Leone • Argyle (Rio Tinto)
• Koidu, (Steinmetz Group) • Ellendale (Gem Diamonds)
Democratic Republic of Congo Tanzania
• Mbuyi-Mayi • Williamson (Petra Diamonds)
Angola
• Catoca (Alrosa)
Lesotho
Botswana South Africa • Letseng (Gem Diamonds)
• Jwaneng, Orapa (De Beers) • Venetia (De Beers) • Kao (Namakwa Diamonds)
• Gope (Gem Diamonds) • Finsch, Premier (Petra Diamonds) • Liqhobong (Firestone)
• AK6 (Lucara Diamonds) • Lace (DiamondCorp) • Mothai (Lucara)

25. 25
The Rough Diamond Business in Context
1/8th the Size of the Copper Business in 2011
160
140
Value World Production (Billion USD)
120
100
2008
80 2009
2010
60 2011
40
20
0
Diamond Pt-Pd Ni Al Au Cu
Source: USGS, LME, Kimberly Process

26. 26
Rough Diamond Production
Stornoway Estimates
2011 Production, by Company, by Value 2011 Production, by Company, by Carats
Others
Others
27.2%
22.7%
Zimbabwe
HW 2.5% Zimbabwe
1.9% 7.1%
HW
Gem 2.1%
1.8%
Petra Gem De Beers
De Beers 0.2% 24.4%
1.4%
34.7%
Rio Tinto Petra
4.9% 1.1% Rio Tinto
BHPB 9.1%
5.1%
BHPB Alrosa
Alrosa 2.0% 26.9%
25.2%
Source: Company Reports and SWY Estimates 2010 Production, by Country, by Value Source: Company Reports and SWY Estimates
Russia
19.6%
Botswana
21.2%
Others
3.4%
Congo
1.4% Canada
Lesotho 18.9%
1.6%
Australia
2.1%
Zimbabwe
2.8% Namibia Angola South Africa
6.1% 8.0% 14.8% Source: Kimberly Process

27. 28
Global Rough Diamond Production Forecast
Almost all rough diamond production forecasts show flat or declining production long term.
Alrosa is an optimistic forecaster, with a 23% increase in carat supply 2010 to 2020. Others (such as RBC
below) forecast 15-17% supply growth. Rough production may not reach 2008 levels in carat terms again.
No large scale diamond mine has been discovered since the discovery of EKATI and Diavik in the early
1990s. New production from projects under development is not expected to materially impact overall supply.
AK6 (LUC) Renard (SWY) Star-Orion (SGF)
Koidu (Steinmetz) Gahcho Kue (MPV, De
Global Rough Diamond
Zimbabwe Production (MMct)
200 Beers)
180
160
140
120
Ct MM
100
80
60
40
20
0
2011E
2012E
2013E
2014E
2015E
2016E
2018E
2019E
2007A
2008A
2009A
2010A
2017E
2006A
Angola Australia Botswana Canada DRC Namibia Russia South Afr ica Zimbabwe Other
Source: RBC Capital Markets

28. 29
Rough Diamond Supply and Demand Forecasts
Alrosa October 2011
Current rough diamond demand forecasting focusses
on the expected expansion of the diamond jewelry
Normal GDP Forecast by Region
markets in Asia.
80,000 CAGR
10-20
Asian diamond jewelry demand growth is expected to 136,959
outpace GDP growth between 2010 and 2020 as the 60,000
26,112 +9.8%
$billions
101,845
traditions of diamond gifting become established within
40,000
the growing middle classes. 76,047 16,769
11,175 +10.4%
10,260 6,756 5,756 +2.9%
20,000 4,168 5,097
Alrosa (after Global Insight, October 2011) forecast 4,322
22,087 +4.3%
17,770
global diamond jewelry consumption g CAGR of 5.6% a 0
14,527
year, reaching $128bn by 2020, helping rough diamond 2010 2015F 2020F
demand to grow by 10.4% on average till 2020 and to United States Japan India China World
Source: Alrosa October 2011 after Global insight
reach $40.8bn (from 2010 level of $15.1bn). Note: GDP at purchasing power parity
Rough Diamond Demand Diamond Jewellery Consumption by Region
50 CAGR
73.8 97.4 127.8
120 10-20
45 40.8 28.2%
40 100
35 26.0 +12.5%
$billions
80 24.5%
30 21.5%
$billions
25.4 15.1 20.5
25 60
12.5 +11.0%
8.0 10.0
20 40 7.2 8.8
15.1 +2.4%
15 7.9
20 44.5
35.7 +4.7%
10 28.2
5 0
2010 2015F 2020F
0
2010 2015F 2020F United States Japan India China % of India to China World
Source: Alrosa October 2011 Source: Alrosa October 2011 after Global insights and Company estimates

29. 30
Diamond Price Growth
Rough and Polished Diamonds Against a Basket of Indicators, 2003-April 2012
Commodity Index Data
700 16000
14000
S&P TSX Composite Index Weekly Closing
600
12000
500
Index October 2003 = 100
10000
400
8000
300
6000
200
4000
100
WWW R.I. Polished Prices Index Gold IMF CPI 2000
IMF IPI IMF CPI NonFuel IMF Coal(Aust) IMF Metal
IMF Cu S&P TSX Comp Index
0 0
01/01/07 01/01/08 31/12/08 31/12/09 01/01/11 01/01/12
Source: LME, IMF, Rough Diamond Price data after WWW International Diamond Consultants Limited Indexed to October 2003

30. 31
Diamond Price Growth
The Impact of Rising Prices on Producer Results and Cutting Centre Liquidity
De Beers Sales, 2000-2011
$8
Long term price growth since
$7 2000 has caused De Beers
Sales (Billion USD)
$6 sales volumes to increase in
$5
$4 dollar terms despite a
$3 shrinking market share.
$2
$1
$- De Beers average sales price
2005
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
up +27% 2009-2010 and
Source: Company Reports +29% 2010-2011.
Cutting Centre Debt, 2000-2011 Long term increase in cutting
$16
center debt levels to
$14 accommodate higher value
Debt (Billion USD)
$12 business with based on
$10
$8 disproportionately smaller
$6 change in sales volumes.
$4
$2
$-
2005
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Source: RBC Capital Markets

31. 32
Future Rough Diamond Price Growth
Market Estimates and Stornoway’s Views
Production and Demand in Rough Terms
(Q1 2012 values)
Recent WWW supply and demand $60bn
modeling predicts excess diamond supply Production
$50bn Demand
between 2011 and 2014, and a Rough
Diamond Price CAGR of 7.5% (Nominal) $40bn
between 2011 and 2025.
$30bn
WWW modeling highlights short term $20bn
discrepancy between rough and polished
diamond pricing, yielding short term price $10bn
caution and long term optimism
$0bn
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Recent De Beers supply and demand source:WWW Forecasts Ltd
Source: WWW February 2011
modeling contains no surplus supply
prediction, and is closer to the Alrosa
rough demand 10% CAGR (Nominal)
forecast to 2020, but with a more
pessimistic supply forecast.
In line with its peers and based on
guidance from WWW, Stornoway
assumes a 2.5% real price growth factor
to 2025 in the the Renard Feasibility
Study in the all-equity case valuation and
for mine planning purposes. A 0% factor
(ie flat diamond prices) is assumed in the
Financing Case model. Source: De Beers November 2011

32. 33
Appendix 2: Feasibility Study Materials

33. 34
Feasibility Study Contributors
Capital and Operating Cost Estimates, Onsite Infrastructure Design,
Construction Strategy, Risk Assessment
Process Plant, Underground Mine Design and Underground Reserve
Open Pit Design, Open Pit Reserve and Financial Analysis
Geotechnical, Processed Kimberlite Containment, Waste Water Management
Environmental, Social and Permitting Considerations
Rock Mechanics, Hydrogeology
NI 43-101 Resource
Human Resources, Operating Plan, Marketing Plan

34. 35
Financial Analysis
Project Assumptions, Valuation and Pay-Back
Key Assumptions in the Financial Model
Reserve Carats (m) 18.0
Tonnes Processed (m) 23.0
Recovered Grade (cpht) 78
Mining Average Ore Recovery (%) 83.5%
Parameters Average Mining Dilution (%) 14%
Dilution Grade (cpht) 0
Processing Rate (Mtonnes/a) 2.2
Mine Life (years) 11
Pre-Production Cap-ex (C$m) $802 Valuation Results (C$m)
Cost LOM Cap-Ex (C$m) $994
Parameters Oil Price (US$/barrel) $90 Pre-Tax After Tax
LOM Op-ex (C$/tonne) $54.71
NPV5% $899 $534
LOM Op-ex (C$/carat) $70.27
Gross Revenue (C$m) $4,112 NPV7% (Base Case) $672 $376
Marketing Costs 2.7% NPV9% $490 $248
Revenue DIAQUEM Royalty 2.0%
Parameters Operating Cash Flow (C$m) $2,677 IRR 18.7% 14.9%
(real terms) Operating Margin 68% Pay-Back (years) 4.65 4.80
Total Taxes and Mining Duties (C$m) $571
After Tax Net Cash Flow (C$m) $1,151
Renard 2 and Renard 3 (US$/carat) $182
Diamond
Renard 4 (US$/carat) $164
Price
Diamond Price Escalation, 2012-2025 2.5%
Parameters
Exchange Rate 1C$=1US$
Effective Date for NPV Calculation January 1 2012
Schedule Construction Mobilization July 1 2013
Parameters Plant Commisioning Commences July 1 2015
Commercial Production Declared January 1 2016

35. 36
Financial Analysis
Capital Costs
Capital Costs (C$m) Direct Costs (C$531m)
Site Preparation & General $22.9 Onsite
Plant utilities
Mining $236.9 and infra.
32%
Mineral processing plant $168.4 19%
Onsite utilities and infrastructures $102.4
Owner’s Cost $86.2
Spares, fills, tools $10.2 Site Prep.
EPCM services $45.0 & General
Mining 4%
Field indirect costs, vendor representatives $22.5 45%
Construction camp & Catering $25.0
Freight and duties $8.1 Field,
Indirect Costs (C$271m)
$74.3 Vendor
Contingency EPCM reps
Total Pre-Production Capital $801.8 17% 8%
$57.3 Spares Camp
Escalation Allowance on Initial Capital
4% 9%
Pre-Production Revenue ($24.6)
Freight
Deferred & Sustaining Capital $138.8 3%
Deferred Capital (Route 167 Extension) $44.0
Salvage Value2 ($22.9) Owner’s
Cost
Total LOM Capital $994.4 32% Conting.
27%

36. 37
Financial Analysis
Operating Costs
Operating Unit Costs (Real Terms; C$)
$/tonne
Open Pit Mine $19.99
Underground Mine $24.11
Plant $14.82
G&A $14.69
Total $54.71 ($70.27/ct)
Notes: Pit costs incurred before January 1st, 2016 are capitalized
Operating Costs LOM Operating Costs (C$1,260m)
70 G&A,
$334.00 ,
60 27%
Plant,
50 $337.00 ,
27%
40 Others
Open Pit
30
Power Mine,
20 $40.70 ,
Labour 3%
10 Undergrou
nd Mine,
0 $547.90 ,
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
43%

37. 38
Financial Analysis
Valuation Sensitivities
30.0% PRE-TAX IRR 1,200,000 PRE-TAX NPV7%
25.0% 1,000,000
20.0% 800,000
15.0% 600,000
10.0% 400,000
5.0% 200,000
0.0% -
80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Operarting Cost 20.7% 19.7% 18.7% 17.7% 16.7% Operating Cost 808,813 740,372 671,932 603,487 535,040
Capital Cost 23.7% 21.0% 18.7% 16.7% 15.0% Capital Cost 829,526 750,717 671,932 593,125 514,316
Revenue 11.6% 15.4% 18.7% 21.8% 24.6% Revenue 235,672 453,813 671,932 890,040 1,108,14
30.0% AFTER-TAX IRR 700,000 AFTER-TAX NPV7%
25.0% 600,000
500,000
20.0%
400,000
15.0%
300,000
10.0%
200,000
5.0% 100,000
0.0% -
80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Operating Cost 16.5% 15.7% 14.9% 14.0% 13.2% Operating Cost 463,661 419,627 375,577 331,523 287,283
Capital Cost 19.1% 16.8% 14.9% 13.2% 11.8% Capital Cost 488,669 432,381 375,577 318,658 261,323
Revenue 9.2% 12.2% 14.9% 17.4% 19.8% Revenue 94,589 236,370 375,577 513,934 651,296

38. 39
Financial Analysis
Renard Diamond Valuation. Conducted by WWW May 9th to 13th 2011
Conducted by WWW International Diamond
Consultants Ltd. May 9th-13th 2011
Achieved Prices for the Valuation Samples WWW Price Modeling
Valuation
Kimberlite Average of Minimum of Maximum of WWW
Sample Number of WWW WWW Base WWW "High"
Body Independent Independent Independent "Minimum"
(carats) Independent Valuation Case Model Model
Valuations Valuations Valuations Model
Valuations (US$/carat) (US$/carat) (US$/carat)
(US$/carat) (US$/carat) (US$/carat) (US$/carat)
Renard 2 1,580 5 $173 $143 $195 $195 $182 $236 $163
Renard 3 2,753 5 $171 $137 $195 $190 $182 $205 $153
Renard 4 2,674 5 $100 $87 $107 $107 $1121 $185 $105
1
The Renard Feasibility Study of November 2011, consistent with the NI 43-101 compliant Mineral Resource of January 2011, utilizes a higher diamond price based on an analysis of
diamond breakage and poor plant recovery of the Renard 4 valuation sample, which is $164/carat. All samples utilize a +0.85mm (+1 DTC) cutoff.

39. 40
Financial Analysis
Renard Diamond Valuation Sensitivities
WWW determine High and Minimum sensitivities on their Base Case diamond price model. WWW state that
it is unlikely that an actual diamond price achieved for each kimberlite body upon production would fall below
the “Minimum” sensitivity, but it is possible that the actual diamond price achieved may be higher than the
“High” sensitivity, which is not a maximum price.
The Feasibility Study Base Case diamond price of US$182/carat for Renard 2 and 3 and US$164/carat for
Renard 4 derives from a value modeling approach that assumes a single diamond size distribution in the
three kimberlites.
An alternative interpretation, that each kimberlite’s diamond population is unique and is correctly represented
by its diamond sample, yields diamond price models of US$208/carat for Renard 2, US$165/carat for Renard
3 and US$112/carat for Renard 4.
WWW
WWW Base WWW "High"
"Minimum"
Kimberlite Body Case Model Model
Model
(US$/carat) (US$/carat)
(US$/carat)
Scenario 1 (Base Case): Utilizing an R2-R3 Size Frequency Model $182 $201 $163
Renard 2
Scenario 2 (Alternative): Utilizing an R2 only Size Frequency Model $208 $236 $186
Scenario 1 (Base Case): Utilizing an R2-R3 Size Frequency Model $182 $205 $168
Renard 2
Scenario 2 (Alternative): Utilizing an R3 only Size Frequency Model $165 $183 $153
Scenario 1 (Base Case): Utilizing an R2-R3 Size Frequency Model $164 $185 $152
Renard 2
Scenario 2 (Alternative): Utilizing an R4 only Size Frequency Model $112 $121 $105

40. 41
Financial Analysis
Renard Diamond Valuation Sensitivities
This “Alternative” diamond price model is highly accretive to the project’s valuation given the dominance of
Renard 2 in the mine plan. The interpretation of similarity in the diamond populations is the more
conservative approach.
Pre-Tax After-Tax
Kimberlite Body NPV7% Pay-Back NPV7% Pay-Back
IRR IRR
(C$m) (years) 1 (C$m) (years) 1
WWW Minimum Model $397 14.6% 5.34 $199 11.5% 5.46
Feasibility Study Base Case Model $672 18.7% 4.65 $376 14.9% 4.80
Alternative Model $871 21.8% 4.07 $502 17.4% 4.20
WWW High Model $1,261 26.5% 3.49 $747 21.4% 3.90
1Calculated on an after-tax basis
A real-terms diamond price growth factor of 2.5% per annum has been applied between 2012 and 2025.
This is consistent with well constrained rough diamond supply and demand forecasts and industry best-
practice. WWW have advised that Stornoway’s assumptions on diamond price and diamond price growth
are “reasonable in the context of the overall supply and demand environment” of the diamond industry.
The project shows strong sensitivity to future diamond price growth.
Pre-Tax After-Tax
Diamond Price Escalation (2012-2025)1
NPV7% Pay-Back NPV7% Pay-Back
IRR IRR
(C$m) (years) 1 (C$m) (years) 1
0% per annum $227 11.8% 5.80 $93 9.2% 5.91
2.5% per annum (Base Case) $672 18.7% 4.65 $376 14.9% 4.80
5% per annum $1,228 25.1% 3.87 $724 20.3% 4.00
1Calculated on an after-tax basis

41. 42
Reserves and Resources
Renard Mineral Reserve Estimate, Announced November 16th, 2011
Mining Recovery Factors Utilized in the Reserve
Probable Mineral Reserve
Calculation
Contained
Grade Tonnes Internal Mining Mining
Kimberlite Carats
(cpht) (millions) Dilution Recovery Dilution
(Millions)
Renard 2 OP 95 1.31 1.24 0.0% 96.0% 7.1%
Renard 2 UG 84 16.30 13.66 6.9% 83.2% 14.0%
Renard 3 OP 93 0.72 0.67 0.0% 96.0% 10.5%
Renard 3 UG 84 1.00 0.84 21.1% 85.0% 14.0%
Renard 4 UG 42 3.72 1.58 1.4% 78.2% 14.0%
Total
Indicated
78 23.06 18.00 5.9% 83.5% 13.5%
Tonnage Carats Revenue
R4,
R4, 9% R4, 8%
16%
R3, R3, 8%
8%
R3,
R2 ,
7%
76% R2 , R2 ,
83% 84%
Notes: Reserve categories are compliant with the "CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves". Totals may not add due to rounding. Grades are estimated at a
+1DTC sieve size cut-off.

42. 43
Reserves and Resources
Renard Mineral Resource Estimate, Announced January 24th, 2011
Grade Tonnes Contained Carats
Kimberlite
(cpht) (millions) (Millions)
Renard 2 103 17.63 18.09
Renard 3 106 1.75 1.85
Renard 4 53 7.25 3.81
Renard 9 -- -- --
Lynx Dyke -- -- --
Hibou Dyke -- -- --
Total Indicated 89 26.63 23.76
Renard 2 118 5.21 6.14
Renard 3 118 0.54 0.64
Renard 4 44 4.76 2.09
Renard 9 47 5.70 2.69
Renard 65 29 12.94 3.72
Lynx Dyke 107 1.80 1.92
Hibou Dyke 144 0.18 0.26
Total Inferred 56 31.12 17.45
Notes: Resource categories are compliant with the "CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves". Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability. Indicated Mineral resources are Inclusive of the Mineral Reserve. Totals may not add due to rounding. Grades are estimated at a +1DTC sieve size
cut-off.

43. 44
Reserves and Resources
Renard Exploration Upside, Announced January 24th, 2011
Grade Tonnes Contained Carats
Kimberlite
(cpht) (millions) (Millions)
Renard 2 103 to 188 4.0 to 4.6 4.1 to 8.6
Renard 3 107 to 168 0.8 to 1.6 0.8 to 2.8
Renard 4 38 to 79 11.1 to 15.3 4.2 to 12.1
Renard 9 45 to 50 3.9 to 6.3 1.7 to 3.2
Renard 65 23 to 33 29.5 to 41.6 6.8 to 13.7
Lynx Dyke 96 to 120 3.1 to 3.2 3.0 to 3.8
Hibou Dyke 104 to 151 2.7 to 2.9 2.9 to 4.3
Total Exploration
Upside
55.1 to 75.5 23.5 to 48.5
Notes: The potential quantity and grade of any exploration target (previously referred to as “potential mineral deposit”) is conceptual in nature, and it is uncertain if further exploration
will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource. The exploration upside for the Renard kimberlite pipes has been determined by projecting reasonable kimberlite
volumes from the base of the inferred Resource to a depth of 700m below surface. In the case of the Lynx and Hibou dykes, the exploration upside was established on the basis of
known drill intersections of kimberlite for which insufficient diamond sampling exists to adequately estimate a diamond resource grade.

44. 45
Processed Kimberlite Containment
PKC site selection was based on a
comprehensive evaluation of 5 sites.
Geochemical characterisation of Processed
Kimberlite (“PK”) and country rock waste
indicates minimal metal leach potential and
no acid generation.
PKC facility will be a dry stacked facility with
no requirement for a liner. Dewatered PK Characterisation
PKC facility can accommodate all current
Indicated and Inferred Resources (44.3 Mt).
Waste rock can be used as construction
aggregate.
PK will be de-watered by centrifuge and
trucked to the PKC site. PKC is an
engineered facility requiring compaction of
berms and placement of erosion barriers.
The PK deposition plan allows for
progressive rehabilitation and re-vegetation.
No fish habitat will be impacted by PK
disposal.
PKC Facility in 2026