2019 Whistler Institutional Investor Conference

2019 Whistler Institutional
Investor Conference
January 24, 2019

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
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) (collectively referred to herein as forward-looking statements). 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: statements regarding the ability or intention to
return capital to shareholders, disciplined capital allocation, significant liquidity and strong cash flow, statements regarding Teck being a compelling value, resource are reserve estimates and mine life projections, our long-term strategies and priorities, the
EBITDA potential of Quebrada Blanca 2 and Teck’s energy business, all expectations set out on the “Value Potential” slide and accompanying discussion, potential for resource upside at Frontier and Lease 421, expectation that the zinc structural deficit
is set to continue, expectation that copper mine production is to peak in 2021 and a structural deficit will emerge, expectations for the projects described under the subheading “Further Enhancing Profitability”, all expectations regarding QB2, including
those described on the “QB2 Summary” slide, potential addition return of capital to shareholders following closing of the QB2 transaction, the estimated capital cost of QB2 and amount of Teck’s portion thereof, expectation that Teck’s equity funding will
not be required until late 2020 and timing of remaining equity funding contributions, future commodity price expectations, expectations regarding the supply and demand for our commodities, long-life of our assets and positioning on the cost curve and low
risk of the jurisdictions in which they are located, growth potential for our commodities, expectations regarding operating costs, liquidity and availability of undrawn credit lines, expectations regarding our Red Dog VIP2 project, Highland Valley D3 project,
procurement strategy and Neptune Terminals expansion, the statement that our projects will have significant free cash flow even at lower prices and other statements regarding projected cash availability and cash flow, statements and expectations
regarding expansion and optimization of the project and property, amount of contingent consideration, expected timing of closing, Teck’s “pro forma” copper exposure and estimated EBITDA on the “QB2 Rebalances Teck’s Portfolio” slide, statements
regarding QB2 mine life, throughput, timing of first production, amount of production, costs (including C1 and AISC), expected EBITDA from the project, Teck’s expectation that it will have significant free cash flow between 2018 and 2020, Teck’s
expectation that its solid financial position and return of cash to shareholders will be maintained throughout QB2 construction, Teck’s projected IRR, Teck’s expectation that QB2 will have attractive and relatively stable operating costs, projected strip ratio,
projected capital intensity, potential resource upside, expectations and projections regarding QB3 including capacity, and all other projections and expectations regarding the QB2, QB3 and QB2 optimization, the statement that our assets are long-life, all
expectations and projected milestones set out on the “Looking Forward” slide, all production guidance, all sales guidance, all cost guidance, all capital expenditure guidance (including categories of capital expenditures), all other guidance, statements
regarding our growth options, the sensitivity of estimated profit and estimated EBITDA to foreign exchange and commodity prices, our sustainability goals and strategy (including but not limited to GHG emission reduction targets), projected investment to
construct water treatment facilities, potential of our SRF and other research and development projects to reduce costs, value potential and potential cost savings associated with our innovation strategy, including regarding smart shovels, autonomous haul
trucks and artificial intelligence, and the savings potential of associated with autonomous haul trucks, our expectations regarding the coal market, expectation that our coal reserves support approximately 27 million tonnes of production for many years,
coal growth potential, strip ratio expectations, projected coal capital expenditures, expected five-year capital spend for water sustaining capital and average water capital costs, Neptune facility upgrade timing and benefits, expectations and projections
relating to the copper market, expectations for our Highland Valley Copper 2040 Project, including potential mine life extension, all expectations and projections regarding our potential production on the “Growth Potential: QB2, NuevaUnión, Project
Satellite” slide, all statements regarding our expectations regarding our Project Satellite properties, including future spending and potential mine life, expectations and projections relating to the copper market, Trail refined zinc production projections,
expectations regarding our potential zinc projects, including Aktigiruq, resource and mine life estimates, Fort Hills production estimates, debottlenecking opportunities, potential benefits and capacity increase from debottlenecking opportunities at Fort Hills
and costs associated with debottlenecking, projected and targeted operating costs, projected life of mine sustaining capital costs, potential for longer term expansion opportunities at Fort Hills and associated costs, the expectation that Fort Hills will provide
free cash flow for decades and a steady and reliable cash flow, Energy EBITDA potential, benefits of our marketing and logistics strategy and associated opportunities, and our expectations regarding our innovation and technology initiatives, the
expectations regarding the number of Class B shares that might be purchased under the normal course issuer bid, and management’s expectations with respect to production, demand and outlook regarding coal, copper, zinc and energy.
The forward-looking statements in these slides and accompanying oral presentation are based on assumptions regarding, including, but not limited to, general business and economic conditions, the supply and demand for, deliveries of, and the level and
volatility of prices of, zinc, copper and coal and other primary metals and minerals as well as oil, and related products, the timing of the receipt of regulatory and governmental approvals for our development projects and other operations, our costs of
production and production and productivity levels, as well as those of our competitors, power prices, continuing availability of water and power resources for our operations, market competition, the accuracy of our reserve estimates (including with respect
to size, grade and recoverability) and the geological, operational and price assumptions on which these are based, conditions in financial markets, the future financial performance of the company, our ability to attract and retain skilled staff, our ability to
procure equipment and operating supplies, positive results from the studies on our expansion projects, our coal and other product inventories, our ability to secure adequate transportation for our products, our ability to obtain permits for our operations and
expansions, our ongoing relations with our employees and business partners and joint venturers, 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.
The forward-looking statements relating to QB2 are also based on assumptions regarding, including, but not limited to, general business and economic conditions, the timing of the receipt of further permits and approvals for the QB2 project, timing and
amount of Teck’s equity contributions assume that the project spending does not increase and contributions are required in accordance with the current project schedule, the unescalated contributions and capital requirements do not include a number of
variables that are described in the footnotes to the disclosure and could be greater once those variables are taken into account, the timing of closing of the transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, and may be
delayed and closing might not occur if those closing conditions cannot be satisfied in the time required under the transaction agreement, the final amount of the US$50 million contingent payment tied to throughput 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, the amount of the contingent payment regarding QB3 depends on a sanction decision being made by December 31,
2031 and may also be reduced if certain throughput and recovery targets on QB2 are not achieved, the amount of pro forma copper depends on Teck achieving its projected copper production targets for 2021 and QB2 producing as expected, all QB2
mining and economic projections (QB2 mine life, throughput, timing of first production, amount of production, costs (including C1 and AISC), expected EBITDA from the project) depend on the QB2 project coming into production in accordance with the
current budget and project schedule, the projected capital intensity figures are based on the same assumptions, all of QB2 economic analysis assume the inferred resources in the sanction case and inferred resources are considered too geologically
speculative to be economic,
2

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
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. Certain forward-looking statements are based on assumptions disclosed
in footnotes to the relevant slides. Our estimated profit and EBITDA and EBITDA sensitivity estimates are based on the commodity price and currency exchange assumptions stated on the relevant slide or footnote. Cost statements are based on
assumptions noted in the relevant slide or footnote. 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. Statements regarding future
production are based on the assumption of project sanctions and mine production. Payment of dividends is in the discretion of the board of directors. Our Elk Valley Water Quality Plan statements are based on assumptions regarding the effectiveness of
current technology, and that it will perform as expected. 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 governments
and the outcome of legal proceedings, inaccurate geological and metallurgical assumptions (including with respect to the size, grade and recoverability of mineral reserves and resources), unanticipated operational difficulties (including failure of plant,
equipment or processes to operate in accordance with specifications or expectations, cost escalation, unavailability of materials and equipment, government action or delays in the receipt of government approvals, industrial disturbances or other job
action, adverse weather conditions and unanticipated events related to health, safety and environmental matters), union labour disputes, political risk, social unrest, failure of customers or counterparties (including but not limited to rail, port 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, if we do not obtain relevant permits for our operations. Our Fort Hills project is not controlled by us and construction and production
schedules may be adjusted by our partners. NuevaUnión is jointly owned. Unanticipated technology or environmental interactions could affect the effectiveness of our Elk Valley Water Quality Plan strategy. The effect of the price of oil on operating costs
will be affected by the exchange rate between Canadian and U.S. dollars. Statements concerning future production costs or volumes are based on numerous assumptions of management regarding operating matters and on assumptions that demand for
products develops as anticipated, that customers and other counterparties perform their contractual obligations, that operating and capital plans will not be disrupted by issues such as mechanical failure, unavailability of parts and supplies, labour
disturbances, interruption in transportation or utilities, adverse weather conditions, and that there are no material unanticipated variations in the cost of energy or supplies. 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. Closing of the QB2 partnering transaction is dependent on satisfying all closing conditions.
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.
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 35 and 36.
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.
3

Our Value Proposition
4
Strong Execution Solid Financial Position Disciplined Capital Allocation
• Premier operating assets
• Proven track record
• Enhancing profitability
• Significant liquidity
• Strong cash flow
• Maintain strong balance sheet
• Asset portfolio optimization
• Strong history of returning
cash to shareholders
• Attractive growth potential
Foundation of Sustainability
Compelling Value

Value Potential
5
Multiple Normalization Quebrada Blanca 2 Energy Business
• Current Teck EV/EBITDA
multiple of 3.8x1
• Historical Teck EV/EBITDA
multiple of 5.8-6.7x1
• Current peer EV/EBITDA
• EBITDA potential of
~US$635M at 60%
ownership and
assuming US$3.00/lb
copper3
• EBITDA potential at full
production of ~C$500M at
US$75/bbl WTI and
US$15/bbl weighted average
WTI-WCS differential4
• Resource upside at Frontier
and Lease 421
• Historical energy EV/EBITDA
Teck’s trailing 12-month
EBITDA is ~C$10.00/share2
~C$1.50/share
EBITDA potential3
~C$1.00/share
EBITDA potential4
Comparable company average includes diversified peers (Anglo American, BHP, Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale)
and North American peers (Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum and Southern Copper).

The Right Commodities at the Right Time
Coal Price Assessments1
Steelmaking Coal Zinc Copper
• Outperforming market expectations
• Long-term average steelmaking coal price is
US$181/t, or US$197/t on an inflation-adjusted basis1
• Forward curve >US$165/tonne through 20211
• Structural deficit
to ease in 2020,
before re-emerging
in 2022.
• Inventories at
record lows.
• Mine production
to peak in 2022 &
structural deficit to
emerge
6
US$/tonne
50
100
150
200
250
300
Argus FOB Australia 12-Month Moving Average

Premier Operating Assets
7
Steelmaking Coal Zinc Copper Energy
Primary Assets:
Elk Valley mines
Primary Asset:
Red Dog
Primary Assets: Antamina,
Highland Valley, Carmen de
Andacollo
Primary Asset:
Fort Hills
• High quality steelmaking
coal
• Long life
• Upper half of margin curve
• ~$22B of Adjusted
EBITDA since the Fording
acquisition1
• Long life
• Bottom quartile of cost
curve
• Strong market position
• Outstanding potential at
Aktigiruq
• Long life
• Bottom half of cost curve2
• Multiple opportunities for
growth – QB3, Zafranal,
San Nicolás, NuevaUnión
• Long life
• Higher quality, lower
carbon intensity product
• Low operating costs
• Expandable
EBITDA Margin3: 58% Red Dog EBITDA Margin3:
42%
EBITDA Margin3: 56% 2018 ramp up

Delivered Five-Point Plan
During Downturn
 No equity issued
 No core assets sold
 Invested in production
growth from Fort Hills
 Maintained strong liquidity
 33% debt reduction1;
managed maturities
All while achieving >$1B in
annualized cost savings2
Driving Industry-Leading
Profitability
• Strong EBITDA margin3
• Strong cash flow
• Canadian tax pools –
EBITDA converts to cash
efficiently
Further Enhancing
Profitability
• Red Dog VIP2 project to
increase mill throughput
• Highland Valley D3 project
to increase mill throughput
and copper recoveries
• Procurement strategy to
maximize margins
• Neptune Terminals
expansion
2012-2016
Proven Track Record
8
2017 2018 Onwards
Source: Capital IQ
41%
33%
43%
Teck Diversified
Peers
North
American
Peers

QB2 Summary
9
 Prudent approach to capital allocation
- Choosing measured growth preserves ability
to return further capital to shareholders and
reduce outstanding bonds
 Partnership and financing plan dramatically
reduces Teck's QB2 capital requirements
- Teck's share of remaining equity is
approximately US$693 million before
escalation1
- No contributions required from closing until
late 20202
 Significantly enhances Teck's economics bringing
after-tax levered IRR to 30-40%3
 Builds on already strong relationship with
Sumitomo Metal Mining and Sumitomo Corporation
 Rebalances Teck's portfolio over time making the
contribution from copper similar to steelmaking coal
 World class, low cost copper opportunity in an
excellent geopolitical jurisdiction
 First production in late 2021 when copper is expected
to be in deficit
 Vast, long life deposit with expansion potential (QB3)
 Advanced stage of operational readiness
incorporating leading technology and innovation to
create a modern mine
 Experienced team ready to execute together with
industry leading EPCM partner in Bechtel
Benefits of Partnering Benefits of Sanctioning QB2

• ~C$7B of liquidity1
• Currently no significant debt maturities prior to 2024; strong
credit metrics reflected in trading price of public debt
• Received regulatory approval to renew our Normal Course
Issuer Bid (NCIB)
‒ Allows us to purchase up to 40M Class B shares prior to
October 9, 2019
• On November 15, 2018, announced that the Board:
‒ Approved payment of a $0.15/share dividend on
December 14, 2018
‒ Directed management to apply $400M to the repurchase
of Class B shares under the NCIB
• Teck’s Board will consider an additional return of capital to
shareholders following closing of the QB2 transaction
10
Source: Capital IQ, Teck
Solid Financial Position
Debt Maturity Profile2
Diversified Peers are Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale. North American Peers are Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum, Lundin and Southern Copper.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
US$M
18%
13%
14%
North American Peers
Diversified Peers
Teck (Adjusted
EBITDA)
Net Debt /
Net Debt-Plus-Equity3
1.1
0.6
0.7
North American Peers
Diversified Peers
Teck (Adjusted
EBITDA)
Net Debt / EBITDA4

$4,739
$2,500
$1,200
$346 $693
QB2 Capital Cost Project Finance Contribution from
Sumitomo
Remaining
Sumitomo Equity
Remaining Teck
Equity
Prudent Balance Sheet Management Through QB2
11
Maintaining Solid Financial Position
• Teck intends to fund its share of required equity
capital through cash on hand and free cash flow
− No cash requirement from Teck post
closing until late 20201
− Significant free cash flow anticipated
between 2018 and 2020
− Current liquidity of approximately
C$7 billion, including C$1.7 billion in cash
and undrawn US$4 billion credit facility
− Only US$117 million in debt maturities
through 2021
• Transaction preserves Teck's solid financial
position and ability to return cash to shareholders
through QB2 construction
QB2 Development Funding
QB2 Capital Costs Before Escalation (US$M)2
After transaction proceeds and
project financing, Teck's share
of remaining equity capital
before escalation is only
approximately US$693 million3
2
3

Balance Returning Cash to Shareholders and
Capex With Prudent Balance Sheet Management
Strategy Capital Allocation
Steelmaking
Coal
• Maintain current production
• Optimize assets
• Significant free cash flow even at lower prices1
• Cash available to fund growth projects
• Neptune Terminals expansion
Zinc
• Maintain current production
• Optimize assets/ extend mine life
• Define Aktigiruq potential
• Strong near-term commodity outlook,
significant free cash flow1
• Cash available to fund growth projects
Copper
• Build QB2
• Optimize current assets/extend
mine lives
• Strong long-term commodity fundamentals
• Attractive growth options – QB3, Zafranal,
San Nicolás, NuevaUnión
Energy
• Moving from significant cash
outflow to cash inflow
• 2018 ramp-up
• Growth through debottlenecking and
expansion
Portfolio
Optimization
• Waneta Dam, NuevaUnión joint venture, Project Satellite
12

Strong Track Record of Returning Cash to Shareholders
~$5.5 billion returned from January 1, 2003 to September 30, 20181
13
Cash Returns in H2 2018
• Purchased US$1B in near-term
debt maturities
• Announced eligible dividend of
$0.15/share to be paid on
December 14, 2018
‒ $0.05/share regular
quarterly dividend and
$0.10/share supplemental
dividend
• Announced $400M repurchase
of Class B shares under NCIB
$4.2 billion
since 2003
$1.3 billion
since 2003
~26%
of free cash flow
in last 15 years
Dividends1 Share Buybacks1
~8%
of free cash flow
in last 15 years

Q4 2018
Looking Forward
Multiple catalysts / valuation milestones
2019+
San Nicolás
• Prefeasibility engineering and SEIA
submission in H2 2019
NuevaUnión
• Feasibility Study completion by Q3 2019
Fort Hills
• Full production in Q4 2018
Highland Valley (HVC)
• HVC 2040 Prefeasibility Study completion in
Q4 2018
Zafranal
• Feasibility Study completion in Q1 2019
14

Strong Execution
• Premier operating assets, a proven track record,
and enhancing profitability at our operations.
Solid Financial Position
• Significant liquidity and strong cash flow.
Disciplined Capital Allocation
• Our approach balances returning cash to shareholders
and capital spending with prudent balance sheet management.
• QB2 transaction preserves Teck’s solid financial position and
ability to return cash to shareholders through QB2 construction.
Compelling Value
Teck
15

Notes
Slide 5: Value Potential
1. Current multiples are as at January 11, 2019. Historical multiples are for the past ten years based on weekly data. Peer multiples are based on a combination of our Diversified Peers and North American
Peers. Diversified Peers are Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale. North American Peers are Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum, Lundin and Southern Copper. EV/EBITDA
multiples are unweighted averages based on data reported by Capital IQ as at January 15, 2019, and are total enterprise value to forward EBITDA for the next twelve months. EBITDA is a non-GAAP
financial measure without a standardized meaning, but generally refers to profit attributable to shareholders before net finance expense, income and resource taxes, and depreciation and amortization.
Capital IQ applies its own approach to calculate this metric and as a result the figures determined from Capital IQ data may vary from results published by Teck or peer companies. See “Non-GAAP
Financial Measures” slides.
1. Trailing 12-month EBITDA is as at September 30, 2018.
2. EBITDA potential for Quebrada Blanca 2 is Teck’s share at 60% ownership and is based on the sanction case for the first full five years of production, assuming a copper price of US$3.00/lb and a
Canadian to US dollar exchange rate of 1.25. See Teck’s news release dated December 4, 2018 for further information regarding Quebrada Blanca Phase 2, including forecast production for the first full five
years of production. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
3. EBITDA potential for the Energy business is at full production of ~90% of nameplate capacity of 194,000 barrels per day. Includes Crown royalties assuming pre-payout phase. Assumes a WTI price of
US$75/bbl, weighted average WTI-WCS differential of US$15/bbl, operating costs of C$20/bbl and a Canadian to US dollar exchange rate of 1.25. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-
GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
4. Historical energy multiples are as provided by RBC Capital Markets as at May 28, 2018 and are based on Suncor, CNRL, Imperial Oil, Cenovus, Husky, MEG, Pengrowth and BlackPearl.
Slide 6: The Right Commodities at the Right Time
1. Long-term steelmaking coal prices are calculated from January 1, 2008. Inflation-adjusted prices are based on Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index. Source: Argus, FIS, Teck. Plotted to January 15,
2019.
Slide 7: Premier Operating Assets
1. Adjusted EBTIDA generated from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2018. This reflects the change in accounting policy to capitalize stripping from January 1, 2013. Waste rock stripping costs incurred in
the production phase of a surface mine are recorded as capitalized production stripping costs within property, plant and equipment when it is probable that the stripping activity will improve access to the
orebody when the component of the orebody or pit to which access has been improved can be identified, and when the costs relating to the stripping activity can be measured reliably. When the actual
waste-to-ore stripping ratio in a period is greater than the expected life-of-component waste-to-ore stripping ratio for that component, the excess is recorded as capitalized production stripping costs.
Adjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
2. Bottom half of the copper cost curve based on the average for our operations.
3. EBITDA margin is for the nine months ended September 30, 2018. EBITDA margin is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 8: Proven Track Record
1. Achieved US$2.4 billion in debt reduction, based on public notes outstanding of US$7.2 billion as at September 30, 2015 and US$4.8B as at June 30, 2017.
2. Achieved >$1 billion in annualized cost savings from initiatives in 2013 to 2016.
3. EBITDA margin LTM for Teck, Diversified Peers and North American Peers are as determined and reported by Capital IQ as at January 16, 2019. Diversified Peers are Anglo American, BHP Billiton,
Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale. North American Peers are Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum, Lundin and Southern Copper. EBITDA margin is a non-GAAP financial measure without a
standardized meaning, but generally refers to EBITDA (earnings, before interest, taxes, depreciating and amortization) divided by total revenues for the relevant period. Capital IQ applies its own approach
to calculate this metric and as a result the figures reported from Capital IQ data may vary from results published by Teck or peer companies. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
17

Notes
Slide 9: QB2 Summary
1. On a go forward basis from January 1, 2019. 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 (not
including contingent consideration). Based on remaining capital costs of US$4.739 billion in constant Q2 2017 dollars, assuming 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, but including approximately US$500 million in contingency.
2. Assumes project finance facility available in Q2 2019, and US$1.2 billion of Sumitomo contributions associated with purchase price spent before first draw. 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.
3. Range based on US$3.00-$3.50/lb copper price. Assumes US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver. As at January 1, 2019. Assumes optimized funding structure, US$2.5 billion in project finance
loans without deduction of fees and interest during construction, and US$1.2 billion contribution from Sumitomo. Does not include contingent consideration.
Slide 10: Solid Financial Position
1. As at December 3, 2018. Assumes a C$/US$ exchange rate of $1.30.
2. Public notes outstanding as at September 30, 2018.
3. Net debt/net debt-plus-equity for Diversified Peers and North American Peers are unweighted averages based on data reported by Capital IQ as at January 16, 2019. Diversified Peers are Anglo American,
BHP Billiton, Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale. North American Peers are Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum, Lundin and Southern Copper. Net debt/net debt-plus-equity is a non-GAAP financial
measure without a standardized meaning, but generally refers to net debt (total debt less cash and cash equivalents) divided by the sum of net debt plus shareholders equity. Capital IQ applies its own
approach to calculate this metric and as a result the figures determined from Capital IQ data may vary from results published by Teck or peer companies. Net debt/net debt-plus-equity for Teck is an
unweighted average as at September 30, 2018. Non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides and “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of the Q3 2018 press
release for further information.
4. Net debt/EBITDA for Diversified Peers and North American Peers are unweighted averages based on data reported by Capital IQ as at January 16, 2019. Diversified Peers are Anglo American, BHP
Billiton, Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale. North American Peers are Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum, Lundin and Southern Copper. Net debt/EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure without a
standardized meaning, but generally refers to net debt (total debt less cash and cash equivalents) divided by EBITDA (earnings, before interest, taxes, depreciating and amortization). Capital IQ applies its
own approach to calculate this metric and as a result the figures determined from Capital IQ data may vary from results published by Teck or peer companies. Net debt/EBITDA for Teck is based on our
adjusted EBITDA and is an unweighted average as at September 30, 2018. EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA and net debt/EBITDA are non-GAAP financial measures. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides
and “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of the Q3 2018 press release for further information.
Slide 11: Prudent Balance Sheet Management Through QB2
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
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 current 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. 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
Slide 12: Balance Returning Cash to Shareholders and Capex With Prudent Balance Sheet Management
1. Free cash flow is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 13: Strong Track Record of Returning Cash to Shareholders
1. From January 1, 2003 to September 30, 2018. Free cash flow is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
18

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 35 and 36.
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.
20

QB2 Transaction Terms
21
Upfront Consideration
• Total contribution of US$1.2 billion into the QB2 project for a 30% interest
- US$800 million earn-in contribution
- US$400 million matching contribution
Contingent Consideration1
• US$50 million to Teck on QB2 achieving mill throughput optimization target of 154 ktpd
• 12% of the incremental QB3 expansion NPV upon sanction
- 8% contingent earn-in contribution
- 4% matching contribution
Post-Transaction
Project Ownership
• 60% Teck / 30% Sumitomo / 10% ENAMI
- 25% Sumitomo Metal Mining
- 5% Sumitomo Corporation
Capital Cost Funding
• US$2.5 billion project financing planned
• Remaining capital cost funded two-thirds by Teck, one-third by Sumitomo
• ENAMI has 10% non-funding interest
Conditions & Closing
• Customary conditions, including regulatory approvals
• Transaction effective date January 1, 2019
• Closing expected before April 30, 2019

Contingent Consideration on Major Expansion (QB3)
22
• Payment of 8% of incremental NPV at sanction to participate in a major project expansion (QB3)
• To be paid as a contribution to project funding (grossed up to 12% including Sumitomo’s one third
share)
• Various configurations for QB3 analyzed at a conceptual level and scoping study initiated
• Resource size capable of supporting a doubling of production, potentially more
• QB3 more capital efficient than QB2 since no new tailings facility required for 10-15 years and other
infrastructure already in place
• Strip ratio remains low
• Could sanction as early as 2024 (subject to permitting, environmental and community
considerations)
Ascribes Material Value to Potential Expansion

5.5x - 6.5x
3.1x
5.5x
3.9x
Teck Excl.
QB
Teck Current
Multiple
Current
Comparable
Company
Average
Teck
Historical
Multiple
Unlocking Hidden Value at QB
23
• Teck trading well below peer average multiple
• Assuming contingent consideration reflects a doubling of
capacity with QB3, transaction implies value of
~US$3 billion3 for Teck’s 90% interest in QB compared with
analyst consensus NAV estimates of ~US$1.2 billion4
- Difference of ~US$1.8 billion implies additional
value of over US$3.00/share5
• Highlights hidden value of Teck’s copper growth portfolio
which also includes Project Satellite and other assets
Significant share price upside based on current
EV / EBITDA multiple relative to peers and lack of value
ascribed to Teck's other copper development assets
Value PotentialEV / 2019E EBITDA1
Adjusting for
value of QB
Comparable company average includes diversified peers (Anglo American,
BHP, Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale) and North American peers
(Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum and Southern Copper)
2

287
174
287
577
2017A Pro Forma
Teck 2017A QB2 Attrib. (60%) QB2 Consolidated (100%)
QB2 Rebalances Teck’s Portfolio
24
Delivers on Copper Growth Strategy
2
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
Teck's Annual Copper Production (kt Cu)
290 kt2
 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
1
1

QB2 Project Highlights
25
 Vast, long life deposit in favourable jurisdiction
 Top 20 producer with top 5 potential through QB3
 Very low strip ratio
 Low all-in sustaining costs (AISC)
 Enhancement (QB2 Prime) and expansion potential (QB3)
 Competitive capital intensity
 High grade, clean concentrates
 Permitted with engineering ~80% complete and construction ready
 Community agreements in place and strong local relationships
World Class Development
Chile
Peru
Bolivia
Tarapacá
Region
Arica y
Parinacota
Region
Antofagasta
Region
Arica
Iquique
QB2
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, Sumitomo
Location

QB2 is a World Class Copper Opportunity1
26
Project
Metrics
(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
Metrics
~US$3B
Implied Value of Teck's 90% Interest8
30%-40%
Teck's Levered After-Tax IRR Post Transaction2,3,9

19%
30%
21%
35%
24%
40%
Unlevered Levered
$3.00 $3.25 $3.50Copper Price (US$/lb):
$193
$435$97
$1,200
$217
$1,793 $640
$290
$1,232
$1,843
$1,292
$82
2019E Pre-Closing 2019E Post-Closing 2020E 2021E 2022E
Teck Contribution Sumitomo Contribution Project Finance
Increasing Teck's Returns on QB2
27
Enhancing IRR Reducing Teck's Equity Contributions
Teck's Equity Contributions Before Escalation (US$M)3
Transaction proceeds and project financing reduce Teck's equity contributions to
~US$693 million4 with no contributions required post-closing until late 20205
Sumitomo to
contribute
true-up post
closing
Transaction with Sumitomo and US$2.5 billion project
financing significantly enhances Teck's IRR
Teck's Post Transaction After-Tax IRR (%)1
(Assumes Closing at End of Q1 2019E)
2

QB2’s Competitive Cost Position
28
Competitive Operating Cost &
Capital Intensity
• 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$15k/tpa copper equivalent is in line or
lower than recent comparably sized projects with the ability to
amortize these costs over a very long mine life2
Low Cash Cost Position
Antamina
Escondida
Collahuasi
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
- 25% 50% 75% 100%
US$/lb
Cumulative Paid Metal (%)
AISC C1 Cash Cost
QB2
(first 5 full years)
US$1.38/lb
QB2
(first 5 full years)
US$1.28/lb
C1 Cash Cost3 & AISC4 Curve (US$/lb, 2023E)1

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
P&P M&I (Exclusive) Inferred
Vast, Long Life Deposit at QB
29
• 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
QB2 Uses Less than 25% of R&R
Reserve and Resource Tonnage (Mt)
Extension Potential
<25% of current
Reserve and
Resource
Tonnage
1
+40%

Enhancement and Expansion Potential at QB
30
QB3 ExpansionQB2 Prime Enhancement
• Focuses on debottlenecking and continuous
improvement through various optimization
initiatives, including:
− Concentrator throughput: targeting
154ktpd through process optimization and
incremental debottlenecking initiatives
− Autonomous haulage systems will drive
further benefits and leverage Teck and
industry learnings
− Mine plan optimization: 9th phase replaces
lower grade feed
− Ore sorting: application of new technology
to increase feed grade and reduce dilution
ongoing at other Teck sites
• Limited capital and permitting requirements
• Deposit is large enough to support the doubling of throughput, or more, which would make QB3
a top 5 copper producer globally
• Expect significantly lower upfront capital cost compared to QB2 of over US$1B, with new tailings
facility (TMF) not required for 10-15 years, plus other potential synergies
• Scenarios reviewed to date outline realistic growth options, with the following key components:
− Resource and mining: straightforward mine phase expansions, available waste dump
space
− Concentrator capacity: further studies will define optimum capacity but resource size
supports at least the doubling of initial throughput
− Tailings management: already identified potential sites for future TMF options
− Permitting: new EIA required in addition to existing permits
• Vast deposit could support throughput capacity of over 400ktpd, similar to some of the largest
copper operations globally
Enhancing economics of QB2 with
limited capital outlay
Expansion of operations to realize the full potential of the QB resource
which could make QB3 Teck's most attractive project

QB2 is Permitted and De-Risked
31
Construction Ready Leveraging QB1 Permitted
25 Years
Operating experience
in region
EIA
Approved
0.44
Strip ratio over first 5
full years (0.70 LOM)
Existing Fleet
& Workforce
~80%
Detailed Engineering
Complete
>70%
Procurement
Advanced
• Significantly reduced capital cost risk
- Detailed engineering ~80% complete
- Procurement over 70% advanced
with major equipment in fabrication
- Contracting well advanced
- Major mass earthworks contracts
awarded
- Construction camp contracts awarded
and in fabrication
• Field activities underway
- Access roads and concentrator mass
earthworks commenced in September
2018
- ~2,000 beds currently available for
construction
• Ability to leverage the existing assets,
workforce with experience at altitude and
local stakeholder knowledge
• Existing QB1 operation has effectively
eliminated pre-stripping requirements
resulting in an exceptionally low life of
mine strip ratio for QB2
• EIA approved in August 2018
• Sectoral permitting underway and
progressing on schedule
• Local training and hiring plan for
construction and operation, in
coordination with government and local
communities
• Significant economic and social benefits
to the country and Tarapacá Region
through employment, taxes and
collaborative investments in local
communities

Clear Path to Production at QB2
32
Construction Approach
• 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
Operational Readiness
• 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

Technology and Innovation at QB2
33
Operational improvements and innovations will be geared towards maximizing productivity and achieving top tier labour efficiency
• Located in Santiago with benefits in safety, productivity, costs, and access to
workforce quality and diversity
• Leads to optimized operations across the business
• Implementing systems that promote labour productivity with a focus on
efficiency and data integration across key functions
• Ability to use operational data analytics to drive real-time decisions
Advanced Digital Strategy and Systems
Integrated Operating Centre
• Reduces employees working at altitude, improves fleet performance and
reduces operating costs
– Performance improvements based on demonstrated opportunities at
other sites
Autonomous Haulage Systems
Desalinated Water
• The first large-scale use of desalinated seawater for mining in Chile’s
Tarapacá Region, eliminating freshwater use in operations

Execution Readiness at QB2
34
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
Experienced Project Team Including Bechtel, a Leading EPCM Company
Teck Owner's Team
Bechtel Management Team

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 $2.4
IRR % 12% 13% 14%
Payback Period years 5.8 5.7 5.6
Mine Life / Payback 4.3 4.9 5.0
Sanction
Case
Reserve
Case
2016 FS
(Reserves)
After-Tax
Economics
General
OperatingMetrics
(AnnualAvg.)
Copper Price (US$/lb) $3.00 $3.25 $3.50
Annual EBITDA (US$B)
First 5 Full Years $1.1 $1.2 $1.4
Payback Period (Years) 5.6 4.9 4.4
NPV at 8% (US$B) $2.4 $3.3 $4.2
Project Unlevered IRR (%) 14% 16% 18%
Teck's Unlevered IRR (%) 19% 21% 24%
Teck's Levered IRR (%) 30% 35% 40%
Copper Price (US$/lb) $3.00 $3.25 $3.50
Annual EBITDA (US$B)
Payback Period (Years) 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 (%) 18% 21% 23%
Teck's Levered IRR (%) 29% 35% 40%
Changes Since Feasibility Study1
QB2 Project Economics Comparison
35
Sensitivity Analysis1
4
6
Sanction Case8
5
Reserve Case8
62
2
2
2
2
7 8 8
3
9
10
6
9
10
2

Grade
Reserves Mt Cu % Mo %
Silver
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)
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
Grade
Reserves Mt Cu % Mo %
Silver
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)
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
QB2 Reserves and Resources Comparison
36
Sanction Case (as at Nov. 30, 2018)2,4Reserve Case (as at Nov. 30, 2018)1,2
53

QB Known Deposit Extends Beyond QB2
37
N
Sanction Case Pit Design
Existing Pit Bottom
Mineralized Footprint
(4km x 2km)
QB2 Pit
(3km x 1.6km)

ENAMI Interest in QB
38
Organizational ChartOverview
• 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
CMTQB
TRCL
ENAMI
Teck
QB1 / QB2 / QB3
10%
(Series B)
100%
90%
(Series A)
JVCo
SMM
66.67%
100%
33.33%
SC
83.33% 16.67%
Chile HoldCo

Notes - Appendix: QB
Slide 21: QB2 Transaction Terms
1. Sumitomo has agreed to make a supplemental payment to Teck of US$50 million if QB2 project throughput reaches 154,000 tonnes per day prior to the earlier of the sanctioning of a major expansion or
December 31, 2025. Expansion contingent consideration is payable if project expansion sanction occurs before December 31, 2031 and Sumitomo elects to participate. If Sumitomo elects not to participate
in the expansion, its interest in the joint venture will be diluted on a basis that effectively gives Teck 100% of the value of the expansion. Both these supplemental payments are subject to downward
adjustment in the event that QB2 mill throughput and copper recoveries do not meet certain targets.
Slide 23: Unlocking Hidden Value at QB
1. Current multiples are as at December 3, 2018. Historical multiples are for the past ten years. Comparable company average based on a combination of Teck's diversified peers and North American peers.
Diversified peers are Anglo American, BHP, Glencore, Rio Tinto, South32 and Vale. North American Peers are Freeport-McMoRan, First Quantum and Southern Copper. EV/EBITDA multiples are
unweighted averages based on data reported by Bloomberg as at December 3, 2018, and are total enterprise value to 2019E EBITDA.
2. Calculated as Teck's enterprise value of ~US$15.3 billion, less ~US$3 billion implied value for QB, divided by 2019 analyst consensus EBITDA estimate of ~US$4.0 billion based on data reported by
Bloomberg as at December 3, 2018.
3. The valuation of approximately ~US$3 billion for Teck’s 90% interest 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 as described in Note 1 to Slide 6, 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.
4. Based on average of analysts who publish a segmented NAV estimate for QB.
5. Calculated as ~US$3 billion implied value for QB, less ~US$1.2 billion analyst consensus NAV estimate, divided by ~575 million shares outstanding.
Slide 24: 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.
39

Slide 26: QB2 is a World Class Copper Opportunity
1. Unless otherwise stated, all metrics assume US$3.00/lb copper, US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver.
2. Range based on US$3.00-$3.50/lb copper price.
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 are presented after by-product credits assuming US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver. C1 cash costs include stripping costs during operations
6. Calculated as C1 cash costs after by-product credits plus sustaining capital requirements. C1 cash costs are described above.
approximately US$270 million.
8. The valuation of approximately ~US$3 billion for Teck’s 90% interest 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 as described in Note 1 to Slide 6, 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.
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 27: Increasing Teck's Returns on QB2
1. As at January 1, 2019. Assumes optimized funding structure and completion of transaction with Sumitomo. Does not include contingent consideration. Assumes US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz
silver.
2. 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.
approximately US$270 million.
4. On a go forward basis from January 1, 2019. 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.
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.
Slide 28: 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 are presented after by-product credits assuming US$10.00/lb molybdenum and US$18.00/oz silver. C1 cash costs include stripping costs during operations.
40

Slide 29: 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 35: 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. C1 cash costs include stripping costs during operations.
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. Post-transaction with Sumitomo. Does not consider contingent consideration.
10. Post-transaction with Sumitomo and includes impact of US$2.5 billion project financing. Does not consider contingent consideration.
Slide 36: 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.
41

43
Diversification
Long life assets
Low cost
Appropriate scale
Low risk jurisdictions
Consistent Long-Term Strategy

Attractive Portfolio of Long-Life Assets
Low risk jurisdictions
44

45
Global Customer Base
Revenue contribution from diverse markets
Sales Distribution (2017)
North
America
19%
Europe
17%
Latin
America
3%
China
18%
Asia excl. China
and India
37%India
6%

46
Diverse Pipeline of Growth Options
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
Trail #2 Acid Plant
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
HVC D3 Project
Fort Hills Debottlenecking
& Expansion
QB3

47
Disciplined Approach to M&A
Total net proceeds of C$2.2B:
• Balance sheet strengthened by divestment of non-core assets at high EBITDA multiples7
• Modest ‘prudent housekeeping’ acquisitions to consolidate control of attractive copper and
zinc development assets
• Innovative NuevaUnión joint venture to create world scale development opportunity
Recent Transaction History
NetProceeds(Cost)(C$M)
CdA Gold
Stream1,
$206M Project Corridor/
NuevaUnion,
$0M
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)
Waneta Dam,
$1,200M6
($400)
($200)
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
July10
Aug27
Oct7
Oct25
Jan19
July5
Oct18
Nov21
Jan26
Oct18
Jul26
2015 2016 2017 2018

Emerged from the Downturn in a Strong Position
Reflects Execution on
Our Five-Point Plan
1. No equity dilution
2. No core assets sold
3. Invested in production growth from
Fort Hills
4. Maintained strong liquidity
5. Reduced our debt & managed
maturities
All while focusing on reducing costs
Teck vs. Peer 5-yr Share Dilution1
Increaseinnumberofoutstandingsharesfrom2013
48
Teck
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Teck now has fewer shares outstanding than in 2009
Peer group includes: Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Hudbay Minerals Inc., Glencore Plc., Lundin Mining Corporation, First Quantum Minerals Ltd., Barrick Gold Corporation, Goldcorp Inc.,
Anglo American Plc., Vale S.A., BHP Billiton Ltd., Rio Tinto Ltd., Southern Copper Corporation.

Teck
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
49
Higher Operating Cash Flow per Share
Teck is the only company among its peers for which 2017
operating cash flow per share exceeds the previous peak year1
Indexedformaximumoperatingcashflowpershare2006-2016
Peer group includes: Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Hudbay Minerals Inc., Glencore Plc., Lundin Mining Corporation, First Quantum Minerals Ltd., Barrick Gold Corporation, Goldcorp Inc.,
Anglo American Plc., Vale S.A., BHP Billiton Ltd., Rio Tinto Ltd., Southern Copper Corporation.

50
Production Guidance
2017 Results 2018 Guidance1 3 Year (2019-2021) Guidance1
Steelmaking Coal 26.6 Mt 26-27 Mt 26.5-27.5 Mt
Copper2,3
287 kt 285-295 kt 270-300 kt
Highland Valley Concentrate 93 kt 100-105 kt 120-140 kt
Antamina Concentrate 95 kt 95-100 kt 90-100 kt
Carmen de Andecollo Concentrate 72.5 kt 60-65 kt 60 kt
Cathode 3.5 kt 3 kt
Quebrada Blanca Cathode 23 kt 24-26 kt
Zinc2,4
Concentrate 659 kt 660-675 kt 575-625 kt
Red Dog Concentrate 542 kt 540-550 kt 475-525 kt
Antamina Concentrate 84 kt 90-95 kt 90-100 kt
Pend Oreille Concentrate 33 kt 30 kt -
Trail Refined 310 kt 305-310 kt 310-315 kt
Bitumen2, 5
Fort Hills n.a. 8.5 - 10.0 Mbbl 14 Mbbl
Lead
Red Dog Concentrate 111 kt 95-100 kt 85-100 kt
Trail Refined 87 kt 65 kt 95-105 kt
Molybdenum2
Concentrate 11.2 Mlbs 9.0 Mlbs 6.5-8.0 Mlbs
Highland Valley Concentrate 9.2 Mlbs 7.2 Mlbs 4.0-5.0 Mlbs
Antamina Concentrate 2.0 Mlbs 1.8 Mlbs 2.5-3.0 Mlbs
Silver
Trail Refined 21.4 Moz 13 -

51
Sales Guidance
Q3 2018
Results
Q4 2018
Guidance1
Steelmaking Coal 6.7 Mt 6.7 Mt
Zinc
Red Dog – Zinc in Concentrate 151 kt 180 kt

52
Cost Guidance
2017 Results 2018 Guidance1
Steelmaking Coal2
Site costs C$52/t C$60-63/t
Transportation costs C$37/t C$35-37/t
Unit cost of sales C$89/t C$95-100/t
Copper3
C1 unit costs US$1.75/lb US$1.75-1.80/lb
Net cash unit costs after by-product margins US$1.33/lb US$1.25-1.30/lb
Zinc4
C1 unit costs US$0.52/lb US$0.50-0.55/lb
Net cash unit costs after by-product margins US$0.28/lb US$0.30-0.35/lb
Bitumen5
Cash operating cost n.a. C$28.50-32.50/bbl

Capital Expenditures Guidance 2018
53
(Teck’s share
in CAD$ millions) 2017
2018
Guidance1
Sustaining
Steelmaking coal2 $ 112 $ 265
Copper 126 155
Zinc 168 220
Energy3 34 30
Corporate 4 5
$ 444 $ 675
Major Enhancement
Steelmaking coal $ 55 $ 150
Copper4 8 70
Zinc5 15 105
Energy3 - 75
$ 78 $ 400
New Mine Development
Copper4 $ 186 $ 450
Zinc 36 35
Energy3 877 195
$ 1,099 $ 680
Sub-total
Copper4 320 675
Zinc5 219 360
Energy3 911 300
Corporate 4 5
$ 1,621 $ 1,755
(Teck’s share
in CAD$ millions) 2017
2018
Guidance1
Capitalized Stripping
Steelmaking coal $ 506 $ 500
Copper 147 145
Zinc 25 25
$ 678 $ 670
Total
Copper4 467 820
Zinc5 244 385
Energy3 911 300
Corporate 4 5
$ 2,299 $ 2,425

54
Commodity Price Leverage1
Mid-Point of
2018 Production
Guidance1
Change
Estimated Effect on
Annualized Profit2
Estimated Effect on
Annualized EBITDA3
$C/$US C$0.01 C$43M /$0.01∆ C$66M /$0.01∆
Coal 26.5 Mt US$1/tonne C$20M /$1∆ C$31M /$1∆
Copper 285 kt US$0.01/lb C$5M /$0.01∆ C$7M /$0.01∆
Zinc 970 kt US$0.01/lb C$10M /$0.01∆ C$14M /$0.01∆

55
Tax-Efficient Earnings in Canada
~$4.5 billion in available tax pools1, including:
• $3.6B in loss carryforwards
• $0.9B in Canadian Development Expenses
Applies to:
• Cash income taxes in Canada
Does not apply to:
• Resource taxes in Canada
• Cash taxes in foreign jurisdictions

56
Share Structure & Principal Shareholders
Teck Resources Limited1
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%

Notes: Appendix - Introduction
Slide 47: 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. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 48: Emerged from the Downturn in a Strong Position
1. Data shown as per December 31st of calendar year. Glencore and Xstrata merger and FQM’s purchase of Inmet both occurred in 2013; therefore December 2013 selected as point of reference. Source:
Capital IQ as of March 14, 2018. Peer group includes: Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Hudbay Minerals Inc., Glencore Plc., Lundin Mining Corporation, First Quantum Minerals Ltd., Barrick Gold Corporation,
Goldcorp Inc., Anglo American Plc., Vale S.A., BHP Billiton Ltd., Rio Tinto Ltd., Southern Copper Corporation.
Slide 49: Higher Operating Cash Flow per Share
1. Data shown as per calendar year. Source: Capital IQ as of March 14, 2018. Peer group includes: Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Hudbay Minerals Inc., Glencore Plc., Lundin Mining Corporation, First Quantum
Minerals Ltd., Barrick Gold Corporation, Goldcorp Inc., Anglo American Plc., Vale S.A., BHP Billiton Ltd., Rio Tinto Ltd., Southern Copper Corporation.
Slide 50: Production Guidance
1. As at October 24, 2018. See Teck’s Q3 2018 press release.
2. We include 100% of production from our Quebrada Blanca and Carmen de Andacollo mines in our production volumes, even though we own 90% (effective April 2018) and 90%, respectively, of these
operations, because we fully consolidate their results in our financial statements. We include 22.5% of production from Antamina, representing our proportionate equity interest in Antamina. We include
21.3% of production from Fort Hills, representing our estimated proportionate equity interest in Fort Hills.
3. Total copper production includes cathode production at Quebrada Blanca and Carmen de Andacollo.
4. Total zinc includes co-product zinc production from our copper business unit.
5. Production estimates for Fort Hills could be negatively affected by delays in or unexpected events involving the ramp-up of production from the project. Three-year production guidance is our share before
any reductions resulting from major maintenance downtime.
Slide 51: Sales Guidance
57

Notes: Appendix - Introduction
Slide 52: Cost Guidance
2. Steelmaking coal unit costs are reported in Canadian dollars per tonne. Steelmaking coal unit cost of sales include site costs, transport costs, and other and does not include deferred stripping or capital
expenditures. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
3. Copper unit costs are reported in U.S. dollars per payable pound of metal contained in concentrate. Copper total cash costs after by-product margins include adjusted cash cost of sales, smelter processing
charges and cash margin for by-products including co-products. Assumes a zinc price of US$1.30 per pound, a molybdenum price of US$12 per pound, a silver price of US$16 per ounce, a gold price of
US$1,250 per ounce and a Canadian/U.S. dollar exchange rate of $1.30. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
4. Zinc unit costs are reported in U.S. dollars per payable pound of metal contained in concentrate. Zinc total cash costs after by-product margins are mine costs including adjusted cash cost of sales, smelter
processing charges and cash margin for by-products. Assumes a lead price of US$1.00 per pound, a silver price of US$16 per ounce and a Canadian/U.S. dollar exchange rate of $1.30. 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. Cash operating cost represents costs for the Fort Hills mining and processing operations and do not include the cost of diluent, transportation,
storage and blending. Guidance for Teck’s cash operating cost is based on Suncor’s outlook for Fort Hills cash operating costs. Estimates of Fort Hills cash operating costs could be negatively affected by
delays in or unexpected events involving the ramp up of production from the project. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 53: Capital Expenditures Guidance 2018
2. For steelmaking coal, sustaining capital includes Teck’s share of water treatment charges of $3 million in 2017. Sustaining capital guidance includes Teck’s share of water treatment charges related to the
Elk Valley Water Quality Plan, which are approximately $70 million in 2018. Steelmaking coal guidance for 2018 excludes approximately $120 million of planned 2018 spending for port upgrades at Neptune
Bulk Terminals, as Neptune Bulk Terminals is equity accounted on our balance sheet.
3. For energy, Fort Hills capital expenditures guidance is at our estimated working interest of 21.3%, and does not include any capitalized revenue and associated costs, capitalized interest or reduction of
capital accruals. Major enhancement guidance for 2018 includes tailings management and new mine equipment at Fort Hills. New mine development guidance for 2018 includes expected spending at Fort
Hills, assuming some further increase in our project interest and Frontier.
4. For copper, new mine development guidance for 2018 includes Quebrada Blanca Phase 2, Zafranal and San Nicolás.
5. For zinc, major enhancement guidance includes the VIP2 project at Red Dog.
Slide 54: Commodity Price Leverage
1. As at July 25, 2018. See Teck’s Q2 2018 press release. All production estimates are subject to change based on market and operating conditions.
2. 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 price 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.
3. Zinc includes 307,500 tonnes of refined zinc and 662,500 tonnes of zinc contained in concentrate.
Slide 55: Tax-Efficient Earnings In Canada
1. As at December 31, 2017.
Slide 56: Share Structure & Principal Shareholders
1. As at December 31, 2018.
58

Sustainability Commitments and Recognition
60
Major Commitments
• International Council on Mining and
Metals 10 Principles and Position
Statements for Sustainable Development
• United Nations Global Compact
• Mining Association of Canada Towards
Sustainable Mining program
• Council for Clean Capitalism
• Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition
• UN Sustainable Development Goals
Recent Recognition
Towards Sustainable Mining
Leadership Awards

Sustainability Strategy
61
• 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:
Community Water Our People
Biodiversity Energy and
Climate Change
Air

Low Cost, Low Carbon Producer
62
• 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
• Progressive carbon pricing already
built into majority of business
• Well-positioned for a low-carbon
economy
Figure 1: GHG Emissions Intensity
Ranges Among ICMM Members
kgCO2e per t product
Teck in bottom
quartile for
miners
Copper Coal

Reducing Freshwater Use
63
11%
4 X
Reduction in
water use
Average re-
use water
at operations
• Water recycled average of 4 times at mining operations
• 11% reduction in total water use since 2014
• Target to reduce freshwater use at Chilean operations by
15% by 2020
• Desalinated seawater for Quebrada Blanca Phase 2 project,
which will reduce freshwater use by 26.5 million m3

Improving Water Quality in B.C.
64
11%
4 X
Reduction in
water use
Average re-
use water
at operations
Implementing Elk Valley Water Quality Plan:
• Comprehensive water quality plan
developed with government, Indigenous
Peoples and communities
• Investing $850-900 million between
2018-2022 to construct water treatment
facilities
• Ground-breaking R&D program to identify
new treatment technologies

Strengthening Relationships with Indigenous Peoples
65
• Agreements in place at all
mining operations within or
adjacent to Indigenous
Peoples’ territories
• Agreements also in place for
major projects, including
Frontier and QB2
• Creates a framework for
greater cooperation and
addresses the full range of our
activities, from exploration
through to closure
In June 2018, Teck announced the signing of
participation agreements for Teck’s proposed
Frontier oil sands project with the Métis Nation
of Alberta, Region 1 and five Métis locals.

Progress on Diversity to Date
66
17%
27%
women in our
workforce
women on
Board of
Directors
women in IT and
engineering roles
• Inclusion and Diversity Policy
launched in 2016 by our
Executive Diversity Committee
• Women comprised 29% of total
hires in 2017
• Teck-wide Gender Pay Equity
Review conducted showing no
systemic gender pay issue
17%
27%
21%
women in our
workforce
women on
Board of
Directors
women in IT and
engineering roles

Sustainability Information for Investors
67
For reports & more, visit our Disclosure Portal and Sustainability Info for
Investors pages

68
Collective Agreements
Long-term labour agreements in place at all North American operations
Operation Expiry Dates
Antamina July 31, 2018
Quebrada Blanca
January 31, 2019
March 31, 2019
November 30, 2019
Line Creek May 31, 2019
Carmen de Andacollo
September 30, 2019
December 31, 2019
Elkview October 31, 2020
Fording River April 30, 2021
Highland Valley Copper September 30, 2021
Trail Operations May 31, 2022
Cardinal River June 30, 2022

Our Innovation Focus
70
Digital Platform
•Equipment automation
•Ore sorting technology
•Digitally-enhanced
operator performance
•Predictive maintenance
•Improving grade and
processing
Sustainability
Digital Foundation
•Fatigue monitoring
systems
•Collision avoidance
monitors
•Remote & autonomous
mobile equipment
•Wearable OH&S
systems
•Ore sorting to reduce
energy use and tailings
•Water management
technologies
•Dust management
•Digital community
engagement
•Exploration tech:
Hyperspectral core
scanning
•Growing markets
through new product
uses
•Partnering with game-
changing innovators
SafetyProductivity Growth

71
Autonomous Haul Trucks
Potential for improved productivity and safety; deploying in 2018
Value potential
• Improved safety
• Highland Valley Copper (HVC): >$20M annual
savings
• Teck-wide: >$100M annual savings potential
• Potential to steepen pit walls and narrow road
widths; reduce environmental footprint
Maturity
• Proven technology; well understood
Milestones
• Partnering with Caterpillar
• Site assessment 2017
• Six-truck deployment at HVC by end of 2018
• First autonomous fleet at a deep pit mine
Productivity Safety Sustainability
⬆Sustainability⬆Productivity ⬆Safety

72
Smart Shovels
Shovel-mounted sensors separate ore from waste
Productivity Sustainability
Value potential
• Increased grade to mill
• Potential to add significant free cash flow at
HVC
• Reduced energy use and tailings; improved
sustainability performance
Maturity
• Currently being piloted by Teck
Milestones
• Pilot launched in 2017
• First ever use of ore sorting technology on a
shovel
• Assessing Red Dog deployment in 2018
• Opportunity to replicate and scale up across
operations
Real-time
Analysis
Mill
Ore
GradeWaste Pile
HighLow
⬆Sustainability⬆Productivity

73
Blast Movement Monitoring (BMM)
Value potential
• Reduced processing costs
• Improved productivity; at Red Dog alone, BMM
savings an estimated $6.5 million annually
• Enhanced environmental performance; reduced
energy and emissions to air
Maturity
• Currently being implemented by Teck
Milestones
• First launched at Red Dog Operations
• Currently being implemented at Red Dog,
Highland Valley Copper and Carmen de
Andacollo Operations Sustainability

74
Artificial Intelligence
Using AI to predict and prevent maintenance problems
Value potential
• Machine learning analyzes data streams from each
haul truck to predict maintenance issues before
they happen
• Reduce unplanned maintenance, reduce overall
maintenance costs, extend equipment life
• Potential $1.2 million annual savings at just one
site
Maturity
• Successfully developed at Teck coal site
• Partnership with Google and Pythian to develop
analytic algorithm
Milestones
• Successfully implemented in production
• Wider deployment underway at coal sites in 2018
Productivity Sustainability

Steelmaking Coal
Business Unit & Markets

Steelmaking Coal Price Exceeding Expectations
76
• Resilient steel industry supports global demand for seaborne coal
• Secular demand growth in India and S.E. Asia adds to demand for seaborne coal
• Chinese capacity reductions, environmental controls & mine safety checks to continue
‒ Steel: improves financial condition and reduces exports
‒ Coal: restricts domestic production and supports seaborne high quality imports
Coal Price Assessments1
US$/tonne
Long-term average
price of US$181/tonne,
or US$197/tonne on an
inflation-adjusted basis
50
100
150
200
250
300
Argus FOB Australia 12-Month Moving Average

77
Steelmaking Coal Facts
Global Coal Production1:
7.5 billion tonnes
Steelmaking Coal Production2:
~1,140 million tonnes
Export Steelmaking Coal2:
~330 million tonnes
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal2:
~290 million tonnes
Our Market - Seaborne Hard Coking Coal2:
~200 million tonnes
• ~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

78
Synchronized Global Growth
Strong steel production and improved steel pricing
Solid Growth in
Crude Steel Production2
Crude Steel Production1
Mt
Crude Steel Production
Nov/18 YTD
YoY Growth
2017 YoY
Growth
Global 4.7% 5.2%
China 6.7% 5.7%
India 4.9% 6.2%
Ex. China & India 2.3% 4.6%
Europe -0.1% 5.4%
JKTV 1.9% 3.3%
Brazil 1.8% 9.9%
500
1,000
1,500
2,000 Global
300
500
700
900
China
500
700
900
1,100 Ex-China & India
50
100
150
India

79
Strong Chinese Steel Margins
Support steelmaking coal prices
China Hot Rolled Coil (HRC) Margins and Steelmaking Coal (HCC) Prices1
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
US$/tonne
China HRC Gross Margins China Domestic HCC Price Argus Premium HCC CFR China

Growing India Steelmaking Coal Imports
India plans to achieve 300 Mt of crude steel capacity by 2030-2031
80
India’s Hot Metal Capacity;
Projects and Operations2
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Imports
Forecasted to increase by ~20%1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Hot Metal Production Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Imports
Mt

81
Capacity Reductions in China Support Pricing
Coal Capacity Reduction Target1Steel Capacity Reduction Target1
• Steel: Profitable steel industry supports raw materials pricing
• Coal: Capacity reductions support seaborne imports
Coking coal2
Thermal coal
800
290 250
~90 ~70
~60 ~40
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2016-2020
target
2016
actual
2017
actual
2018
target
2019-2020
remaining
target
Mt
140
65
50
30
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2016-2020
target
2016
actual
2017
actual
2018
target
2019-2020
remaining
target
Mt

82
HMP2 Coke
Output2
2+26 Cities ~25% ~10%
Fenwei Plain ~10% ~35%
Yangtze River ~25% ~15%
Total - 3 Areas ~60% ~60%
2017-20181 2018-20191
Areas 2+26 cities ~80 cites in 3 areas
Approach Universal cut Flexible
Period 4 months for steel
6 months for coke
6 months for both
steel and coke
Impact Less restrictive than last year
Chinese Production Control in Winter

Chinese Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Imports
Impacted by import restrictions amidst tight domestic market
83
Chinese Crude Steel Production (CSP), Hot
Metal Production (HMP) and Coal Production1 Chinese Seaborne Coking Coal Imports2
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Milliontonnes
Milliontonnes
CSP HMP Coking Coal Production
31 32
25
34
60
48
35 36
44
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Milliontonnes

84
Large Users in China Increasing Seaborne Imports
~2/3 of China crude steel produced on coast; projects support imports
Seaborne Coking Coal Imports1
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
completion in 2021
Shougang Jingtang Plant
• Expansion
• Capacity: crude steel 9.4 Mt (phase 2)
completion in Mar 2019
Shandong Steel Rizhao Project
• Greenfield project
• Capacity: crude steel 8.5 Mt
• Status: Construction started in 2015; BF #1
completed in 2017; BF #2 completion in 2019
Liusteel Fangcheng Project
• Greenfield project
• Capacity: Phase 1 crude steel ~10 Mt
• Status: Construction started in 2017
10
21 21 22
25 25
25
39
26
13 11
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Milliontonnes
Non-14 users 14 large users
Baowu Zhanjiang Plant
• Expansion
• Capacity: crude steel 3.6Mt (phase 2)
• Status: Construction start date to be announced
Baowu Yancheng Project
• Capacity: crude steel 20Mt
• Status: Construction to start in 2019

85
Chinese Scrap Use to Increase Slowly
EAF share in crude steel production to recover only to 2016’s level
Crude Steel and Electric Arc Furnace Production3
Crude Steel
China’s Ratio of EAF in CSP Low vs. Other Countries1 China Steel Use By Sector (2000-2017)2
Electric Arc Furnace
Hot Metal
Construction
55-60%
Others
15-20%
Machinery
15-20%
Auto
5-10%
9%
24%
57%
68%
31%
40%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
China Japan India United
States
Russia European
Union
World
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Mt

86
302
316 311-316
8 2
2 1 1 5
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
2018 Australia Indonesia Mozambique Canada Russia 2019, ex.
USA
USA 2019
Mt
Steelmaking Coal Supply Growth Forecast
Key growth comes from Australia
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Exports1
(Change 2019 vs. 2018)
Includes:
• Australia: Growth from existing mines (Caval
Ridge/Peak Downs, Grosvenor, Appin, Byerwen)
• Indonesia: BBM project
• Mozambique: Vale Moatize ramp up
• Canada: Restarted mines ramp up
• USA: Analyst views ranging from
approximately -5Mt to nil2

87
US Coal Producers are Swing Suppliers
US Steelmaking Coal Exports1Australian Steelmaking Coal Exports1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mt
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mt

88
275
285
295
305
315
325
335
345
355
Existing mines
Demand: base case (WoodMac)
Demand: high case (India achieves 75% of government target)
Mt
Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Exports
Coal gap developing and market could be short due to typical disruptions
Possible Restarts
and Projects1
Supply & Demand from Existing Mines1
~45-65 Mt needed from
restarts and projects by 2026
Includes:
• Existing mines: expansion (~25 Mt) and depletion (~40 Mt)
• Expansions: Australia (~1/2),
Indonesia/Russia/Mozambique/Canada/ROW (~1/10 each)
• Depletion: Australia (~1/2), USA (~1/3), ROW (~1/6)
• Highly probable projects: Russia (~1/2), Australia (~1/4),
USA (~1/4)
• Possible restarts: Australia (~3/5), Canada (~1/5),
ROW (~1/5)
• Probable projects: Australia (~3/5); Canada (~1/5),
ROW (~1/5)
• Possible projects: Australia (~2/5),
Canada (~2/5), Russia (~1/5)
0
20
40
60
80
Highly probable projects Possible restarts
Probable projects Possible projects
Mt
Gap to
base case
Includes:
Additional
gap to high
case

89
North America
~5%
Europe
2013: ~15%
2015: ~20%
2017: ~20%
China
2013: ~30%
2015: ~20%
2017: ~15%
Asia excl. China & India
2013: ~40%
2015: ~45%
2017: ~45%
Latin America
~5%
2nd Largest Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Supplier
Competitively positioned to supply steel producers worldwide
India
2013: ~5%
2015: ~5%
2017: ~10%
Sales Distribution

90
An Integrated Long Life Coal Business
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
• >1 billion tonnes 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

Maintaining 27 Mt with Upside Potential
Upcoming Closure
• Coal Mountain closing in 2018 (2.5 Mt capacity)
Current Growth
• Line Creek investing in a shovel and plant
expansion to build from 4 Mt to ~5 Mt
• Elkview investing in Baldy Ridge Extension and
plant capacity upgrades to build from ~7 Mt to ~9
Mt
• Greenhills investing in Cougar Pit Extension to
maintain ~5 Mt
• Fording River developing Swift and Turnbull to
produce ~9 Mt
• Cardinal River developing plans to potentially
extend the life beyond 2020 at ~1.8 Mt
Future Growth Potential
• Potential growth opportunities at Quintette
91
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Production(millionstonnes)
Annual Production
Fording River Greenhills (80%) Elkview
Line Creek Cardinal River Coal Mountain

2018 Budget vs. 2017 Actuals
Transitioning Operations to Capture Margin
92
Strip ratio increasing from 10.2 to 10.5 with
closure of Coal Mountain
• Production gap will be made up at the other
Elk Valley mines
Hauling 1 km longer, offset with improved
truck productivities
• Fording River moving further into Swift
development
Truck/shovel operating costs down in the last
6 years despite normal wage and input
inflation; Operating costs increasing in 2018
related to:
• Life cycle maintenance repair work (e.g. haul
truck engines)
• Higher variable rates
‒ Diesel & tire prices
‒ Insurance & labour rates
Mine plan impacts, offset ~$2.70/t
by higher value product
Operating costs increasing ~$1.00/t
in 2018, offset by higher
productivities

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
CleanStripRatio
6 year avg
Strip Ratio Supports Future Production
• Strip ratio increase planned in 2018
‒ Low strip, low cost Coal Mountain closing
‒ Development at larger mines to increase
capacity and access to higher quality coals
• Future strip ratio on par with historical average
93
0
~~
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
$/tonne
Total Costs¹
Strip Ratio

-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Capital($M)
Sustaining Major Enhancement Quintette
2009-2015 Avg 2016-2022 Avg
Reducing Average Mining Capital Spend by ~$7/t
2018 capital reinvestment in our
operations, lower future spend
2009-2015: Average spend of ~$13/t1
• Reinvestment in 5 shovels, 50+ haul
trucks, mining area development and plant
upgrades
2016-2022: Average spend of ~$6/t1
• Sustaining reinvestment in shovels, trucks
and technology to increase mining
productivity and processing capacity
Limited major enhancement capital
required to increase existing mine
capacity and offset Coal Mountain closure
94
Excl. Water
Capital Expenditures, Excluding Water Treatment

Water Sustaining Capital
95
2018-2022 - Five-year capital spend
expected to be $850M-$900M for:
• Commissioned one active water
treatment facility (AWTF)
• Construction of three additional AWTF’s
2023-2032:
• Average capital cost of ~$65M per year
• Up to five additional AWTFs
$850-900M Total
$65M

Water Strategy - Innovation
96
Promising Research
and Development
Saturated Rock Fills (SRF)
• 10,000m3/d full scale trial commissioned in
January 2018
‒ $41M construction, $10M annual
operating cost
‒ Potential to replace or augment cost of
AWTFs in the future
‒ Conclusive results expected end of 2019
Comparison based on
20,000 m³/day
Capital Operating
Total Initial ($M) Annual ($M)
AWTF (Design) $310 $22
SRF (Conceptual) $50 $10
Flow Pit
outline
Backfilled
ground
level
Flow
Inject mine
impacted water
Monitoring
Extract
treated water
Use and Enhancement of Biological
Process Present in Backfill Pits
Carbon Tracers

97
High Quality Hard Coking Coal Product
• Around the world, and especially in China,
blast furnaces are getting larger and
increasing PCI rates
• Coke requirements for stable blast furnace
operation are becoming increasingly higher
• Teck coals with high hot and cold strength
are ideally suited to ensure stable blast
furnace operation
• Produce some of the highest hot strengths in
the world
50 60 70 80 90 100
South Africa
Japan (Sorachl)
Japan
(Yubarl)
U.S.A.
Canada Other
Teck HCC
Australia
Japan
South Africa
Australia
(hard coking)
and Canada
U.S.A.
Australia
(soft coking)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Drum Strength Dl 30 (%)
CSR
Teck HCC

Sales Mix
• ~40% quarterly contract price
• ~60% shorter than quarterly pricing
mechanisms (including “spot”)
98
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
Product Mix
• ~75% of production is high-quality HCC
• ~25% is a combination of SHCC, SSCC,
PCI and a small amount of thermal
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
Index Linked Fixed Price
~20%
~80%

99
Quality and Basis Spreads
Impact Teck’s average realized steelmaking coal prices
HCC / SHCC Prices and Spread1 HCC FOB / CFR Prices and Spread2
US$/t
US$/t
US$/t
US$/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)

100
Average Realized Steelmaking Coal Prices
Historical Average Realized Prices vs. Quarterly Contract Prices1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Q22010
Q32010
Q42010
Q12011
Q22011
Q32011
Q42011
Q12012
Q22012
Q32012
Q42012
Q12013
Q22013
Q32013
Q42013
Q12014
Q22014
Q32014
Q42014
Q12015
Q22015
Q32015
Q42015
Q12016
Q22016
Q32016
Q42016
Q12017
Q22017
Q32017
Q42017
Q12018
Q22018
Q32018
US$/tonne
Teck Realized Price (lhs) Quarterly Contract Prices (lhs)
Teck Realized Price Relative to Contract (rhs)
Averaged 92% from Q2 2010

101
~75 Mt of West Coast Port Capacity Planned
Our portion is >40 Mt; exceeds current production plans, including Quintette
• Teck Canpotex Joint Venture
• Recently expanded to 12.5 Mt
• Planned growth to >18.5 Mt
Westshore Terminals
Neptune Coal Terminal
Ridley Terminals
West Coast Port Capacity
• Current capacity: 18 Mt
• Teck contracted at 3 Mt
• Teck is largest customer at 19 Mt
• Large stockpile area
• Currently 33 Mt
• $275M project for expansion to
35-36 Mt by 2019
• Contract expires March 2021
MillionTonnes(Nominal)
18
12.5
336
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Ridley
Terminals
Neptune Coal
Terminal
Westshore
Terminals
Current Capacity Planned Growth
2-3

Neptune Facility Upgrade
Optimizing the footprint to allow for >18.5 Mtpa
102
• All permits in place, final project funds sanctioned in Q2 2018, with project completion in
H1 2020
• Work has commenced on the overpass and dumper vault; major construction and
fabrication contracts awarded
• The investment enhances the quality of the entire steelmaking coal portfolio
‒ Ensures globally competitive port rates
‒ Ownership of primary berth will ensure access to market
‒ Will provide sprint capacity (surge and recovery) to capitalize on price volatility
Securing a long-term, reliable
and globally competitive
supply chain solution for our
steelmaking coal business
Improvements include:
1. Overpass to improve site access
2. Investments to enhance environmental monitoring and performance
3. Improved train handling with addition of tandem coal dumper and track
to land second coal train on site
4. West coal shiploader replacement to increase capacity and reach

Notes: Appendix – Steelmaking Coal
Slide 76: Steelmaking Coal Price Exceeding Expectations
1. Long-term steelmaking coal prices are calculated from January 1, 2008. Inflation-adjusted prices are based on Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index. Source: Argus, FIS, Teck. Plotted to January 15,
2019.
Slide 77: Steelmaking Coal Facts
1. Source: IEA.
2. Source: CRU.
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 78: Synchronized Global Growth
1. Source: WSA, CRU.
2. Source: WSA, NBS.
Slide 79: Strong 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 January 4, 2019.
Slide 80: Growing India Steelmaking Coal Imports
1. Source: WSA, Global Trade Atlas, Wood Mackenzie, CRU.
2. Source: Wood Mackenzie.
Slide 81: Capacity Reductions in China Support Pricing
1. Source: Governmental announcements.
2. Breakdown of the remaining target for coal capacity reductions is calculated based on Fenwei estimates. Source: Fenwei, Teck.
Slide 82: Chinese Production Control in Winter
1. Source: Governmental announcements.
2. Source: CRU.
Slide 83: Chinese Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Imports
1. Source: NBS, Fenwei. 2018 is November year-to-date annualized.
2. Source: China Customs. 2018 is November year-to-date annualized.
Slide 84: Large Users in China Increasing Seaborne Imports
1. Source: China Customs, Teck.
Slide 85: Chinese Scrap Use to Increase Slowly
1. Source: WSA.
2. Source: China Metallurgy Industry Planning and Research Institute.
3. Source: CRU.
103

Notes: Appendix – Steelmaking Coal
Slide 86: Steelmaking Coal Supply Growth Forecast
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie, CRU.
2. Source: Wood Mackenzie, CRU, Seaport Global Securities LLC.
Slide 87: US Coal Producers are Swing Suppliers
1. Source: Global Trade Atlas. US exports do not include exports to Canada. 2018 is November year-to-date annualized for Australia and October year-to-date annualized for USA.
Slide 88: Seaborne Steelmaking Coal Exports
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie. Exports include disruption allowance that is based on the difference between Q2 forecast and actual exports over the period 2015 to 2017.
Slide 91: Maintaining 27 Mt with Upside Potential
1. Subject to market conditions and obtaining mining permits.
Slide 93: Strip Ratio Supports Future Production
1. Total costs are transportation costs and site costs inclusive of inventory write-downs and capitalized stripping, excluding depreciation. 2018 is the mid-point of unit cost of sales guidance.
Slide 94: Reducing Average Mining Capital Spend by ~$7/t
1. All dollars referenced are Teck’s portion net of Poscan credits for Greenhills at 80% and excluding the portion of sustaining capital relating to water treatment. The portion of sustaining capital relating to
water treatment is addressed on the following slide.
Slide 99 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 January 10, 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 January 10,
2019.
Slide 100: Average Realized Steelmaking Coal Prices
1. Compares Teck’s average realized price to the negotiated quarterly benchmark price from Q1 2010 to Q1 2017, and to the index-linked quarterly contract price from April 1, 2017.
104

Copper

106
Copper Content in Electric Vehicles
Depends on technology, vehicle size and battery size
1
22
40
125
5
9.88
20
5
5
5
11
5
5
5
5
5
18
23
23
23
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Internal
Combustion
Hybrid Electric Plug In Hybrid Battery Electric EBus Hybrid
KgsofCopperperVehicle
Battery Inverter Electric Motor HV Wire Other LV Wire
Copper Content by Type of Electric Vehicle

107
Copper Demand for Electric Vehicles
Electric Vehicles Copper Demand
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
ThousandsofTonnesofCopperContained
Car ICE Car BEV + PHEV Car HEV E-Bus Hybrid E-Bus BEV
+7.5 Mt

108
Copper Demand for Charging Infrastructure
Additional Copper Demand Charging Equipment
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
TonnesofCopperContained
North America EU-28 China Rest of Asia Pacific Latin America Rest of World
+0.6 Mt
Source: Navigant Research

Steady Demand Growth & Increasing Copper Intensity
109
Chinese Copper Demand to Grow ~3-4%1 Increasing Copper Intensity with Booming
Electric Vehicles2
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
ThousandTonnes
Others Transport Machinery
Appliances Construction Power
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2020E
2025E
ThousandTonnes
Plug-in CVs Plug-in PVs
Battery Electric CVs Battery Electric PVs
Commercial Vehicles (CVs) Passenger Vehicles (PVs)
2 million EVs in 2020
7 million EVs in 2025

Global Copper Mine Production Increasing Slowly
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
20152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Other China
Glencore Africa Cobre Panama
Quellaveco Quebrada Blanca
Escondida New Mines
110
Thousandtonnescontained
• Mine production set to increase 1.8 Mt by 2023, including:
‒ Glencore’s African mine restarts: 400 kmt
‒ Cobre Panama 330 kmt
‒ Escondida 390 kmt
‒ Quellaveco 350 kmt
‒ Quebrada Blanca 300 kmt
‒ China 490 kmt
‒ All others (Oyu Tolgoi UG, Spence, Chuqui UG) 1,250 kmt
‒ Reductions & closures (1,500 kmt)
• Mine production currently peaks in 2022
• Chinese mine production growth relatively
flat at ~100 kmt per year
• Total probable projects: 1,570 kmt
Global Copper Mine Production1

111
-1,200
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2018
e
Thousandtonnes
Copper Disruptions
Less impact at mines; smelters impacted more in 2018
3.0%
Disruptions1
4.5% 0¢
10¢
20¢
30¢
40¢
Spot Realised TC/RC
Spot TC/RCs Rising2
2.8%

Copper Metal Stocks Falling
Better than expected demand – smelter disruptions
• Production cuts at Asian smelters combined with lower
scrap availability contributed to a drawdown in cathode.
• Exchange stocks fell 600,000 tonnes since March 2018.
Days of consumption now at 4.8 days, lowest since late
2014. Including bonded stocks – lowest since 2009.
• China's refined copper demand continues to be
supportive – up 4% ytd in China. With end-use growth in
housing starts +16% ytd & white goods +5.5% ytd.
• The cathode market will move into small deficit in 2019
with additional scrap restrictions in China tightening both
concentrates and cathode markets.
• The concentrate market will move into tightness as new
Chinese smelters start to come on line.
• Reported annual TC/RC settlements at $80.5/8.05 below
2018 settlements. Spot indications are trending down
moving into Chinese New Year.
112
Copper Stocks Fall to Early 2014 Levels
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0¢
50¢
100¢
150¢
200¢
250¢
300¢
350¢
400¢
450¢
500¢
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
LME Stocks Comex
SHFE Bonded Estimate
Price

113
Chinese Copper Mine Projects1
Rapid Growth in Chinese Copper Smelter Capacity
Limited domestic mine projects and lots of delays
+2 Mt of Smelting Projects in the Pipeline2
0
100
200
300
400
ThousandTonnes
2017
140 kt
2018
40 kt
2019 - 2021
253 kt
0
100
200
300
400
ThousandTonnes,Blister
2018
1,290 kt
2019 - 2020
680 kt
2017
280 kt

China More Important in Global Copper Market
Buying more copper from the rest of the world
114
Substantial Concentrate Imports Growth1
14%
15%
19%
22%
24%
29% 30%
33%
37%
39%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
ThousandTonnes
Scope for Concentrate Imports
Chinese Mine Production
Continuous Growth of Imported Copper Units2
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
ThousandTonnes
Copper anode imports Copper scrap imports
Copper cathodes Imports Copper concs Imports
Demand for imported cathodes shifting towards concentrate and scrap;
Copper scrap imports to drop 300-400 kt under China’s ban

115
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Brownfield Probable Greenfield Probable SXEW Projects
Planned Copper Projects Will Not Meet Demand
Copper mine production peaks in 2022
Highly Probable + Probable
Projects Insufficient to Fill Gap1
kmt
13,000
15,000
17,000
19,000
21,000
23,000
25,000
27,000
29,000
31,000
Mine Production SXEW
Scrap Low Demand WM
Base Demand Teck High Demand ICA/Yale
kmtcontained
Gap to
low demand
scenario
Existing and Fully Committed Supply1
Uncommitted Nearby projects only 1.5 Mt by 2028
Includes: El Abra (300kmt) Kamoa/Kakula (300 kmt)
Iranian Small Mines (135kmt) Golpu (110 kmt)
Rosemont (120 kmt) Tominsky (90 kmt)
Tia Maria (115 kmt) Udokan (250 kmt)
At least 4.2 Mt needed
from new projects by 2028
Low Demand (1.5%): 4.2 Mt
Base Demand (2.0%): 5.6 Mt
High Demand (2.7%): 8.0 Mt Gap to
low demand
scenario

Growth and Improvement Opportunities
Highland Valley Copper 2040 Project
• Advancing HVC Mine Life Extension Pre-Feasibility Study
- Targeting extension of ~15 years, to at least 2040
- Leveraging investments in Mill Optimization Project (2013) and D3 Ball Mill (2019)
- Capturing value from Shovel-based Ore Sorting and Autonomous Hauling
116

0
200
400
600
800
Current
AverageAnnualCuEqProduction(kt)
Zafranal San Nicolás
NuevaUnión QB2
Highland Valley Antamina
Carmen de Andacollo QB
2017 CuEq Production (excl. QB)
Zafranal
San Nicolás
NuevaUnión
QB2
Growth Potential: QB2, NuevaUnión, Project Satellite
Potential Production Profile
On a Copper Equivalent Basis1 Mine Production 2017 - Copper Only2
~790
~313
Teck
Potential #6
Teck
Current #16
117
680
274
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Codelco
Freeport-McMoRan
Glencore
BHPBilliton
SouthernCopper
Teck-Potential
KGHMPolskaMiedz
FirstQuantumMinerals
RioTinto
Antofagastaplc
Vale
MMGLimited
AngloAmericanplc
Nornickel
NationalIranianCopper
Teck
KAZMinerals
SumitomoMetalMining
Kazakhmys
UGMK
LundinMining…
ThousandTonnes

Project Satellite
Defining the path to value recognition
118
Disciplined and coordinated
decision making
Commercial, technical and
community expertise
Schaft Creek (75%)
Galore Creek (50%)
San Nicolás (100%)
Zafranal (80%)
Mesaba (100%)
Quality Assets – Dedicated, Focused Team – Advancing to Key Milestones
Image
placeholder
Strategic capital allocation –
prudent investment plans
Newmont Partnership
July 26, 2018
32,000m drill program complete
October 2018
FS and SEIA program
nearing completion
Maiden Resource
Statement Q4 2018

Zafranal (80% Interest)
Advancing an attractive copper-gold asset in Peru
119
Long Life Asset
• 19 year life of mine1
• Further upside potential within the deposit
footprint and in the district
Quality Investment
• Attractive front-end grade profile
• Mid range forecast LOM C1 cash costs
• Competitive capital intensity
Stable Jurisdiction
• Strong support from Peruvian regulators
including MINEM and SENACE
• Engaged with full spectrum of communities
Path to Value Realization:
• C$43M budget in 20182
• 2019 Work Plan and Budget in preparation
• Targeting Feasibility Study completion and SEIA
submission in Q1 2019 and H1 2019 respectively
Class Tonnes
(Mt)
Cu
(%)
Au
(g/t)
Cu
(Mlbs)
Au
(Mozs)
Measured & Indicated1 467.3 0.38 0.07 3,925 1.051
Inferred1 21.4 0.24 0.06 114 0.041

San Nicolás (100% Interest)
Unlocking value from a high grade copper-zinc Teck greenfield discovery
120
Long Life Asset
• One of the world’s most significant
undeveloped VMS deposits1
Quality Investment
• Expect C1 cash costs in the 1st quartile
• Competitive capital intensity
• Co-product Zn and Au & Ag credits1
Stable Jurisdiction
• Well-established mining district in Mexico
• Community office established and
engagement plan well underway
• 32,000m multi-purpose drill program complete Oct 2018
• C$28M Budget in 2018
• PFS completion and MIA submission H2 2019
Class Tonnes
(Mt)
Cu
(%)
Zn
(%)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(g/t)
Cu
(Mlbs)
Zn
(Mlbs)
Indicated1 91.7 1.24 1.7 0.46 26.7 2,507 3,437
Inferred1 10.8 1.24 1.0 0.26 17.4 295 238

Galore Creek (50% Interest)
Updated partnership on a high grade copper-gold-silver deposit in NW BC
121
Long Life Asset
• Large high grade copper-gold system
• Legacy zone extension and Bountiful zone
discovered in 2013-14
Quality Investment and Partnership
• Expect C1 cash costs in the 1st quartile
• Strong technical, commercial, and
community expertise from Partners
Stable Jurisdiction
• Improving infrastructure in Golden Triangle
• Well-established Participation Agreement
with Tahltan First Nation
• C$100M2 investment plan over 3-4 years to complete
prefeasibility study and re-initiate permitting studies
• Focused on lower risk and cost access options
Class Tonnes
(Mt)
Cu
(%)
Au
(g/t)
Cu
(Mlbs)
Au
(Mozs)
Proven1
Probable1
69
459.1
0.61
0.58
0.52
0.29
928
5,870
1.154
4.281
Measured1
Indicated1
39.5
247.2
0.25
0.34
0.39
0.26
218
1,853
0.495
2.066
Inferred1 346.6 0.42 0.24 3,209 2.674

Project Satellite
A path to value recognition
122
Mesaba (100% Interest)
Positioning a significant undeveloped Cu-Ni-PGE
(Au-Ag-Co) deposit
• Maiden Resource statement due at the end of 2018
• Continued focus on developing a permitting pathway
• Evaluating partnership opportunities
Schaft Creek (75% Interest)
Assessing development options for this large Cu-
Mo-Au-Ag deposit
• Received Multi-Year Area Based permit to carry out field
studies over 5 years
• Evaluating staged development options
• Continuing baseline environmental and social programs

Notes: Appendix – Copper
Slide 106: Copper Content in Electric Vehicles
1. Source: ICA, Navigant Research, IDTechEx.
2. Source Photo: ICA, IDTechEx for ICA.
Slide 107: Copper Demand for Electric Vehicles
1. Wood Mackenzie.
Slide 108: Copper Demand for Charging Infrastructure
1. Source: Navigant Research for ICA presentation.
2. Source: Photo: Baka.Ca/Solar – file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Slide 109: Steady Demand Growth & Increasing Copper Intensity
1. Source: NBS, ICA, Wood Mackenzie, CEC, ChinaIOL, Teck.
2. Source: Government plans, CAAM, ICA, Teck.
Slide 110: Global Copper Mine Production Increasing Slowly
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie, AME, Teck.
Slide 111: Copper Disruptions
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie, AME, Teck, Company Reports.
2. Source: Wood Mackenzie, CRU, Metal Bulletin.
Slide 112: Copper Metal Stocks Falling
1. LME, SHFE, SMM, CME, Teck, Fast Markets
Slide 113: Rapid Growth in Chinese Copper Smelter Capacity
1. Includes mine projects with copper capacity >10 ktpa. Source: BGRIMM.
2. Source: CRU, BGRIMM, SMM, Teck.
Slide 114: China More Important in Global Copper Market
1. Source: China Customs, Wood Mackenzie, BGRIMM, Teck.
2. Source: China Customs, Wood Mackenzie, SMM, Teck.
Slide 115: Planned Copper Projects Will Not Meet Demand
Slide 117: Growth Potential - QB2, NuevaUnión, Project Satellite
1. Illustrative potential production profiles, including 65% of Quebrada Blanca 2’s first five years of full production, 50% of NuevaUnión’s first ten years of full production, 100% of San Nicolás’ first five years
of full production, and 80% of Zafranal’s first five years of full production, in each case based on relevant feasibility or pre-feasibility studies or scoping studies. Copper equivalent production calculation
assumes gold at US$1,200 per ounce, silver at US$18 per ounce, copper at US$3.00 per pound, zinc at US$1.10 per pound and molybdenum at US$10 per pound.
2. Teck’s current production as reported by Wood Mackenzie. Teck’s potential production as estimated by Teck, based on current production, QB2, NuevaUnión, San Nicolas and Zafranal. Source: Wood
Mackenzie, SNL, Teck. As at September 4, 2018.
123

Notes: Appendix – Copper
Slide 119: Zafranal (80% Interest)
1. See the June 2016 Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility published by AQM Copper Inc. filed on SEDAR.
2. Total project budget. Teck’s 80% Pro-rated share is approximately C$35M.
Slide 120: San Nicolas (100% Interest)
1. For current Reserve and Resource statements, see Teck’s 2017 AIF filed on SEDAR.
Slide 121: Galore Creek (50% Interest)
1. See the July 2011 Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility published by NovaGold and filed on SEDAR.
2. Total project budget. Teck’s 50% Pro-rated share is approximately C$50M.
124

Steady Demand Growth & Increasing Zinc Intensity
126
Chinese Zinc Demand to Grow ~2%1
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
2021E
2022E
2023E
ThousandTonnes
Others Machinery Auto
Construction Consumer goods Infrastructure
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
ThousandUnits Galvanized cars Non-galvanized cars
Galvanized %
More Cars Expected to be Galvanized2

Environmental/Safety Inspections & Depletions
Constraining zinc mine production
127
-25kt,
-7%
-29kt,
-9%
-63kt,
-40%
Flat
-2kt,
-2%
+10kt,
+12%
-6kt,
-6%
+2kt,
+2%
• Entire country under environmental & work safety inspections
• Blue regions are also suffering from depletion evidently
• 2018 mine production down 1% YoY
-26kt,
-23%
Huoshaoyun
Most Regions Reporting Negative Growth1 Estimated Zinc Mine Growth Rarely Achieved2
100
350
270
180
300
250
360
200
-630
60
-50
-150
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E
ThousandTonnes
Early-year estimate Adjusted estimate
+17kt,
+558%

Zinc Mine Projects Increasingly Delayed
Impacted by inspections and low zinc ore grades
128
Mine Depletion & Low Grades of Projects2Future Mine Growth Heavily Dependent
On One Single Project1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
ThousandTonnes
2018
86 kt
2019-2021
891 kt
2017
133 kt
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
2021E
OreGrade,Zinc% Operating mines New projects

China to Require More Zinc Concentrate Imports
129
China Will Have to Import
More Zinc in Concentrate2Concentrate Stocks Rise1
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
100
200
300
400
500
Jan-11
Jul-11
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
TCsonImports($/dmt)
Thousanddmt
Port Concs Stocks TCs on Imported Concs
1,452
854
1,101
1,733
1,813 1,829
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
ThousandTonnes,ZincinConcentrates
Concentrate stocks rebounded since Q2 2018 due to Chinese smelter cuts and increasing imports;
Chinese mine production fell again in 2018, increasing scope for imports

Increasing Demand for Zinc Metal Imports
130
De-stocking Continues
Chinese Stocks at Record Lows1,2
More Imported Zinc Metal
Required to Fill the Gap3
652
503
770
924
1,507 1,512 1,467 1,425
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2015
2016
2017
2018E
2019E
2020E
2021E
2022E
ThousandTonnes
Smelter cutbacks lead to drawdown of warehouse inventories – now record low;
If China does import 1.7 Mt of concentrates, still requires 1.5 Mt of metal imports
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Jan-12
Jun-12
Nov-12
Apr-13
Sep-13
Feb-14
Jul-14
Dec-14
May-15
Oct-15
Mar-16
Aug-16
Jan-17
Jun-17
Nov-17
Apr-18
Sep-18
ThousandTonnes
Domestic Commercial Stocks Bonded Stocks
Smelter + Consumer Stocks

6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
15 16 17f 18f 19f 20f 21f 22f
Other China Glencore
Dugald River Gamsberg New Century
New Mines
• Decline in mine production in 2016 (845 kmt)
• 2018 increase brings mine production back to 2015
levels
‒ Market living off refined stocks for the past four years
• Mine production peaks in 2021
• Mine production set to increase 975 kmt this year
‒ Dugald River (170 kmt)
‒ Gamsberg (250 kmt) to ramp up towards 2019
‒ New Century (270 kmt)
‒ Zhairem (160 kmt) by mid-2020
‒ Several new small mines and restarts also planned
• Estimate mine production will increase 3.6%/yr
2019-2022
‒ Limited Chinese mine growth (~100-200 kmt increase)
Zinc Price Incentivizing New Mines
131
Global Zinc Mine Production1
kmtcontained

Zinc Treatment Charges Rebounded Since Q2 2018
132
Concentrate Stocks Rising – Still Low1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Jan-14
Jul-14
Jan-15
Jul-15
Jan-16
Jul-16
Jan-17
Jul-17
Jan-18
Jul-18
Days-of-use
Thousanddmt
Port Concs Stocks Smelter Stock Days
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan-10
Jan-11
Jan-12
Jan-13
Jan-14
Jan-15
Jan-16
Jan-17
Jan-18
DomesticTC(RMB/dmt)
ImportedTC($/dmt)
Imported spot TCs Domestic spot TCs
Smelter Cuts Push Up TCs2
TCs ~US$15/t
Chinese Smelters
Co-ordinated Cut

133
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0¢
50¢
100¢
150¢
200¢
250¢
LME Stocks Hidden Bonded SHFE Price
Daily Zinc Prices & Stocks1
US¢/lb
ThousandTonnes
• Global hidden stocks may have reached ~1.4 Mt in 2012, and total global stocks reached ~3.3 Mt
• Total stocks reached critical levels in 2018, which will make the metal market very tight
• SHFE stocks at the end of September reached the lowest level since 2007
133
Consecutive Deficits Decreasing Zinc Inventory

134
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Greenfield Brownfield/Restart
Includes: Tala Hamza (60 kmt) Huoshaoyun (400 kmt)
Citronen (180 kmt) Mehdiabad (400 kmt)
Ozemoe (350 kmt) Pavlovskoye (150 kmt)
McArthur Exp (185 kmt) Kipushi (225 kmt)
Selwyn (450 kmt) Dairi (125 kmt)
Asmara (70 kmt) Aznalcollar (100 kmt)
Iscaycruz (80 kmt)
Zinc Gap Forecast to Continue
Zinc mine production peaks in 2021
Uncommitted Projects
Insufficient to Fill Gap1
kmt
Existing and Fully Committed Supply1
kmtcontained
Gap to
low demand scenario
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
Base Secondary Low Demand High Demand
Gap to low
demand
scenario
Almost 5 Mt needed from
new projects by 2027
Low Demand (1.6%): 4.7 Mt
High Demand (2.0%): 5.32Mt

135
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Thousandtonnes
Largest Global Net Zinc Mining Companies
Teck is the Largest Net Zinc Miner1
Provides Significant Exposure to a Rising Zinc Price
Public Company
Private Company
Teck

Red Dog Quickly Adapting to New Ore Source
136
Successful Qanaiyaq pit ramp up
- Difficult metallurgy and weathered ore
at start
- Stockpile blending strategies modified
- Achieving feed tonnage blend target of
~20%
Significant cost reductions realized
- Significantly improved throughput rates
from 450 tph to 510 tph
- Optimized use of reagents
- Higher Zn and Pb recoveries
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
2017 2018E 2019E-
2021E
QAN%ofMillFeed
ZnGrade(%)
QAN Feed QAN Grade
$50
$55
$60
$65
$70
$200
$225
$250
$275
$300
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E
OperatingUnitCosts
(US$/tmilled)
OperatingCosts
(US$,millions)
Operating Costs $/t milled

137
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
21%
14%
31%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Zinc Sales1
0% 0%
57%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Lead Sales1

138
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
UnitCosts(US$/lb)
Red Dog Operating Cost Seasonality
Significant quarterly variation
Red Dog Unit Costs1
• 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

139
Red Dog in Bottom Quartile of Zinc Cost Curves
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
US¢/lb
C1+Sustaining Cost Curve 20181
Red Dog
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
US¢/lb
C1 Cost Curve 20181
Red Dog

140
• Large zinc production increase
− >50% in 2017 vs. the last 5 years
− Quarterly zinc production profile varies based on mine sequencing
• Mine life extension studies progressing
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-
2021
Production(kt)
Copper & Zinc Production1
Zinc Copper
Strong Zinc Production at Antamina
-
5
10
15
20
25
Q1-13
Q2-13
Q3-13
Q4-13
Q1-14
Q2-14
Q3-14
Q4-14
Q1-15
Q2-15
Q3-15
Q4-15
Q1-16
Q2-16
Q3-16
Q4-16
Q1-17
Q2-17
Q3-17
Q4-17
Production(kt)
Quarterly Zinc Production

Resetting the Bar at Trail Operations
• Annual refined zinc production
increased to ~310 kt since 2015
- Targeting further sustainable
improvements in zinc production
• Second new acid plant advancing well
- Improved reliability and stability
• Margin improvement programs
- Focus on cost management
- Improve efficiency
- Introduce value-added products
• Pend Oreille life extension potential
- Important low-iron feed source very
close to Trail
141
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E 2019E-
2021E
AnnualZincProduction(kt)
#1 Acid Plant
#2 Acid Plant
Step Change in Refined Zinc Production

142
Building a Quality Zinc Inventory
Potential New GIANT System1

143
Global Context of Teck’s Zinc Resources
Well positioned; world class1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
GradeZn+Pb%
Resource Million Tonnes
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

Teena (100% Interest)
Greenfield discovery - right time, right place, right insights
144
Long Life Asset
• 58Mt @ 11.1% Zn and 1.5% Pb (Inferred)1
• Most significant Zn-Pb discovery in
Australia since 1990 (Century/Cannington)
Quality Project
• Significant mineralized system
• High grade
• Premier zinc district
Stable Jurisdiction
• Stable regulatory environment
• Low sovereign risk
• Skilled workforce
• 2013 discovery
• 2016: Consolidated 100% ownership
• Next 18 months: Advancing delineation

Aktigiruq (100% Interest)
Uncovering potential in the brownfield environment
145
Long Life Asset
• Exploration target of 80-150 Mt @ 16-18%
Zn + Pb1
Quality Project
• Premier zinc district
• Significant mineralized system
• High grade
Stable Jurisdiction
• Operating history
• ~12 km from Red Dog operations
• Strong community ties
• 2001: Initial drill hole
• 2017: Exploration target announced
• Next 18 months: Advancing delineation

Notes: Appendix – Zinc
Slide 126: Steady Demand Growth & Increasing Zinc Intensity
1. Source: NBS/CNIA, CAAM, ChinaIOL, Wind, CEIC, Teck.
2. Source: Mysteel, Teck.
Slide 127: Environmental/Safety Inspections & Depletions
1. Source: NBS/CNIA.
2. Source: BGRIMM, Antaike, Teck.
Slide 128: Zinc Mine Projects Increasingly Delayed
1. Includes mine projects with zinc capacity ~ 10 ktpa. Source: BGRIMM, Antaike, Teck.
2. Source: BGRIMM.
Slide 129: China to Require More Zinc Concentrate Imports
1. Source: MyMetal, Industrial sources, Teck.
2. Source: China Customs, Wood Mackenzie, Teck.
Slide 130: Increasing Demand for Zinc Metal Imports
1. Source: SHFE, MyMetal, SMM, Industrial sources, Teck.
2. ”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: China Customs, Wood Mackenzie, Teck.
Slide 131: Zinc Price Incentivizing New Mines
Slide 132: Zinc Treatment Charges Rebounded Since Q2 2018
1. Source: MyMetal, Industrial sources, Teck.
2. Source: MyMetal, SMM, Teck.
Slide 133: Consecutive Deficits Decreasing Zinc Inventory
1. Source: LME/SHFE, GTIS, Teck.
Slide 134: Zinc Gap Forecast to Continue
146

Notes: Appendix – Zinc
Slide 135: Largest Global Net Zinc Mining Companies
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie, 2018.
Slide 137: Red Dog Sales Seasonality
1. Average sales from 2010 to 2017.
Slide 138: Red Dog Operating Cost Seasonality
1. Average quarterly unit cost (2013-2017) before royalties, based on Teck ‘s reported financials.
Slide 139: Red Dog in Bottom Quartile of Zinc Cost Curves
1. Source: Wood Mackenzie
Slide 140: Strong Zinc Production at Antamina
1. Guidance numbers are based on the mid-point of production guidance. Production numbers reflect Teck’s 22.5% share.
Slide 142: 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 143: 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.
Slide 144: Teena (100% Interest)
1. At a 6% zinc plus lead cut off, estimated in compliance with the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Code.
Slide 145: Aktigiruq (100% Interest)
1. Refer to press release of September 18, 2017, available on SEDAR. Aktigiruq is an exploration target, not a resource. Potential quantity and grade of this exploration target is conceptual in nature. There
has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.
147

Energy

Energy Benchmark Pricing
149
$45.66
$10.00
-5
5
15
25
35
45
US$/bbl
WTI/WCS Basis Differential2
Hardisty USGC
$30.61
0
20
40
60
80
US$/bbl Calendar NYMEX WTI1
$76.41
$48.98

Quality Barrels in a Progressive Jurisdiction
4th largest oil sands mining portfolio
150
Fort Hills is in operation
• Teck 21.3% = 0.6 billion barrels1
Frontier is in the regulatory phase
• Teck 100% = 3.2 billion barrels2
Lease 421 is a future growth opportunity
• Teck 50%
• High quality lease: high grade, high recovery,
low fines
Alberta, Canada

151
Energy Within Teck’s Portfolio
Consistent with all our strategic criteria
 Strategic diversification
 Long life assets
 Truck & shovel operations
 Low unit operating costs
 Resource quality & scale
 Stable jurisdiction

152
Our Energy Strategy
Teck as a partner of choice
Focus on maximizing value of Fort Hills
• Safe and efficient ramp-up, increase production volumes, lower costs
De-risk Frontier & Lease 421
• Frontier regulatory hearing scheduled for September 25, 2018
Drive business results through technology & innovation
• Safe & reliable production, cost and footprint

Fort Hills is a Premier Asset
Long-life of >45 years with a very low decline rate
• Commissioning has exceeded our expectations,
with December 2018 production over 200 kbpd
• Alberta Government mandated curtailments will
reduce 2019 production to 157–175 kbpd1
• We won’t rest on our laurels; focus on unit costs &
low capital intensity debottlenecking opportunities
• Executing our comprehensive sales & logistics
strategy
153

154
Lower Carbon Intensity Product at Fort Hills
Comparable to the average barrel refined in the U.S.
• Paraffinic Froth Treatment (PFT) removes asphaltenes
• Best in-class Canadian oil sands carbon intensity, including in-situ
• Pushing technology for continuous improvement
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
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
Carbon intensity of average
barrel refined in the US = 502
Totalcarbonintensity(kgCO2e
perbarrelofrefinedproducts)
Source: IHS Energy Special Report “Comparing GHG Intensity of the Oil Sands and the Average US Crude Oil”, May 2014.

A Modern Mine Built for Low Cost Operations
Provides the foundation for our Energy business
155
Safe & efficient operations:
• Using leading-edge technology
• Learnings from other facilities
Operating costs:
• Life of mine cash operating costs: C$22-23/bbl1
• Target below C$20 per barrel
Capital efficiency:
• Life of mine sustaining capital: C$3-5/bbl2
• Higher in 2019 due to tailings and equipment
ramp-up spending

Debottlenecking and Expansion Opportunities
With significant incremental cash flow potential
156
Potential capacity increase of 20-40 kbpd on a
100% basis
• Teck’s 21.3% share of annual production could
increase from 14.0 Mbpa to 15.5-17.0 Mbpa
• Near term opportunities to achieve some of the
increase with minimal capital
• Longer term opportunities may require modest
capital

Free Cash Flow for Decades
Providing Teck with steady and reliable cash flow
157
• Energy EBITDA potential of ~C$500M
at full production of 14 Mbpa1
• Significant upside with debottlenecking
Assumptions
WTI price US$75/bbl
Weighted average
WTI-WCS differential
US$15/bbl
C$/US$ exchange rate 1.25
Operating costs C$20/bbl

158
First sales in March 2018, rapid
increase to full supply capability
Excellent acceptance of Fort Hills’
product (FRB) in the US Midwest and
Gulf Coast
Active purchaser of diluent blendstock,
sufficient supply to meet demand
Significant Market Presence
Developing a reputation as a preferred counterparty
Teck’s Commercial Activities1
Bitumen production 38.5 kbpd
+ Diluent acquisition 11.0 kbpd
= Bitumen blend sales 49.5 kbpd

159
Executing Our Comprehensive Sales & Logistics Strategy
Seeing early returns from diverse market access
Our sales mix provides diverse market access1
• 10 kbpd shipped to premium value US Gulf Coast
market via Keystone pipeline
• 39.5 kbpd at Hardisty, a key Canadian market hub
• Significant connectivity to export pipelines and rail
loading facilities
Well positioned for future opportunities,
including:
• Rail loading capacity at Hardisty and customer
sales
• Export pipeline expansions
20
kbpd
10
kbpd
19.5
kbpd
Sales Mix
Long term
contracts
at Hardisty
Monthly basis
at Hardisty
Monthly basis to
US Gulf Coast

Notes: Appendix – Energy
Slide 149: Energy Benchmark Pricing
1. Source: CME Group.
2. Sources: Net Energy and CalRock.
Slide 150: Quality Barrels in a Progressive Jurisdiction
1. Proved and probable reserves as at December 31, 2017. See Teck’s annual information form dated February 26, 2018 for further information regarding Fort Hills reserves.
2. Best estimate of unrisked contingent resources as at December 31, 2017, prepared by an independent qualified resources evaluator. See Teck’s management discussion and analysis dated February 14,
2018 for further information regarding the Frontier resource. There is uncertainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources.
Slide 153: Fort Hills is a Premier Asset
1. Based on Suncor’s guidance as at December 14, 2018.
Slide 154: 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 155: A Modern Mine Built for Low Cost Operations
1. 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 and 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.
2. 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.
Slide 157: Free Cash Flow for Decades
1. Free cash flow is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
2. Fort Hills’ full production is ~90% of nameplate capacity of 194,000 barrels per day. Includes Crown royalties assuming pre-payout phase. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP
Financial Measures” slides.
Slide 158: Significant Market Presence
1. Annualized average at full production. Reflects 21.3% Fort Hills partnership interest.
Slide 159: Executing Our Comprehensive Sales & Logistics Strategy
1. Annualized average at full production. Reflects 21.3% Fort Hills partnership interest.
160

Energy
Business Unit Modelling

Operating Netback – Q2 2018 (June)
CAD$/bbl June 1-30, 2018
Bitumen price realized $64.59
Transportation ($8.90)
Crown royalties ($3.59)
Operating costs ($38.25)
Operating netback $13.85
• Operating netback is a non-GAAP measure, presented on a product and sales barrel basis on page 22 of the Q2
2018 news release.
• Derived from the Energy segmented information (P&L), after adjusting for items not directly attributable to the
revenues and costs associated with production and delivery.
• Excludes depreciation, taxes and other costs not directly attributable to production and delivery of Fort Hills product.
Blended bitumen sales revenue less diluent
expense (includes diluent product, Norlite, East
Tank Farm)
Royalties are payable at 1-9% of gross revenue
or 25-40% of net revenue depending on project’s
financial status. More information on royalties is
available at: Alberta Energy
Costs at the mine to produce bitumen: labour,
fuel (diesel, natural gas), materials (tools, tires),
maintenance, Teck 100% Fort Hills G&A
Downstream of East Tank Farm: Wood Buffalo
system, Keystone, Hardisty tank
162

163
East Tank Farm
Blending Facility (-)
Edmonton Terminal
Diluent Product (-)
Teck
Norlite Pipeline(-)
Wood Buffalo Pipeline
Fort Saskatchewan
Cavern Storage &
Diluent Product (-)
Teck
Wood Buffalo Pipeline Extension
Keystone Pipeline
Sales - US Gulf Coast (+)
Enbridge Mainline
US Midwest,
Eastern Canada
Hardisty Terminal
Rail Loading
Sales – Hardisty (+)
Fort Hills Mine Terminal
FHELP Managed
Legend
Bitumen Price Realized
Transportation
Operating Costs
Operating Netback – Q2 2018 (June)

(C$ in millions, except where noted)
One month ended
June 30, 2018
Revenue as reported $ 78
Less:
Cost of diluent for blending (22)
Add back: Crown royalties1 (D) 3
Adjusted revenue (A) $ 59
Cost of sales as reported $ 77
Less:
Transportation (C) (8)
Depreciation and amortization (12)
Adjusted cash cost of sales (E) $ 35
Blended bitumen barrels sold (000s of barrels) 1,162
Less: diluent barrels included in blended bitumen (000s of barrels) (244)
Bitumen barrels sold (000s of barrels (B) 918
Operating Netback Reconciliation – Q2 2018 (June)
Non-GAAP Financial Measure on page 49 of Q2 2018 news release
1. Revenue is reported after deduction of crown royalties.
2. Average period exchange rates are used to convert to US$ per barrel equivalent.
One month ended
June 30, 2018
Per barrel amounts (C$/barrel)
Bitumen price realized (A/B) $64.59
Transportation (C/B) (8.90)
Crown royalties (D/B) (3.59)
Operating costs (E/B) (38.25)
Operating netback (C$/barrel) $ 13.85
Blended Bitumen Price Realized Reconciliation
Add back: crown royalties1
3
Blended bitumen revenue (F) $ 81
Blended bitumen barrels sold (000s of barrels) (G) 1,162
Blended bitumen price realized — (CAD$/barrel) (F/G) = H $ 70.00
Average exchange rate (I) 1.31
Blended bitumen price realized — (US$/barrel) (H/I) $ 53.32
164

Energy Gross Profit - Q2 2018 (June)
Blended Bitumen Revenue Calculation
CAD$ in millions June 1-30, 2018
Revenue, as reported (A) $78
Add back: crown royalty (G) – from
Q2 2018 news release; page 49
3
Blended bitumen revenue, calculated (H) $81
Energy Business Unit Operating Statement
Revenue:
Blend sales (H) $81
Less: crown royalty (G) (3)
Revenue (A) $78
Less: Cost of sales:
Cost of diluent for blending (E) $22
Operating expenses (C) 35
Transportation (D) 8
Depreciation and amortization (F) 12
Cost of sales, calculated $77
Gross profit (B) $1
From Revenue and Gross Profit Table
Q2 2018 news release; page 35
Revenue (A) $78
Gross profit (loss) (B) $1
From Cost of Sales Summary Table
Q2 2018 news release; pages 36-37
Operating costs (C) $35
Transportation costs (D) $8
Concentrate and diluent purchases (E) $22
Depreciation and amortization (F) $12
165

Modelling Bitumen Price Realized – Q2 2018 (June)
Non-GAAP Financial Measure
A. Blend sales = blend sales @ Hardisty + blend sales @ U.S. Gulf Coast (USGC)
= $81 per “Blended Bitumen Price Realized Reconciliation” and “Reconciliation of Energy Gross Profit”
• Blend sales @ Hardisty = [(WTI – WTI/WCS differential @ Hardisty – negotiated differential) x F/X rate] x #
of barrels sold at Hardisty
• Blend sales @ USGC = [(WTI – WTI/WCS differential @ USGC – negotiated differential) x F/X rate] x # of
barrels sold at USGC
***WTI/WCS differentials are not the same at Hardisty vs. USGC
B. Cost of diluent for blending:
= Cost of diluent product + diluent transportation/storage + blending cost
= $22 per “Cost of Sales Summary Table” and “Reconciliation of Energy Gross Profit”
• Cost of diluent product = [(WTI +/- condensate premium/discount) x # of diluent barrels sold in blend] x
F/X rate
***Diluent contained in a barrel of blend ranges from approximately 20% to 25% depending on the quality
of blend and season (temperature)
• Diluent transportation and blending cost includes tolls on the Norlite pipeline, East Tank Farm blending
facility and diluent storage at Fort Saskatchewan
C. Bitumen barrels sold – as provided on the “Operating Netback Reconciliation”
Bitumen price realized = (blend salesA – diluent expenseB) / bitumen bbls soldC
166

Energy EBITDA Simplified Model
Illustrative EBITDA Calculation - Teck Attributable @ 21.3% (14 Mbpd)1
Assumption Per Barrel Total
WTI price US$75.00
Less: Weighted average WTI-WCS differential (US$15.00)
Multiplied by: C$/US$ exchange rate @ $1.25
WCS price (WTI price less WTI-WCS differential x C$/US$ exchange rate @ $1.25) C$75.00
Less: Operating costs (C$20.00)
Diluent cost (includes product, diluent transportation and blending costs) (C$10.00)
Transportation (pipelines & terminalling downstream of ETF) (C$7.00)
Crown royalties (C$3.00)
Total cost (C$40.00)
EBITDA C$35.00
EBITDA potential (14 Mbpd x cash margin) ~C$500M
167

Notes: Appendix – Energy Business Unit Modelling
Slide 167: Energy EBITDA Simplified Model
1. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. This model is being provided to illustrate how Teck calculates EBITDA for its Energy business unit. The figures included are not forecasts of projected figures of
Teck’s Energy EBITDA. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” slides.
168

Non-GAAP Financial Measures
170
EBITDA is profit attributable to shareholders before net finance expense, income and resource taxes, and depreciation and amortization. Adjusted EBITDA is EBITDA before the
pre-tax effect of certain types of transactions that in our judgment are not indicative of our normal operating activities or do not necessarily occur on a regular basis. These
adjustments to EBITDA highlight items and allow us and readers to analyze the rest of our results more clearly. 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. We believe that disclosing these
measures assist readers in understanding the ongoing cash generating potential of our business in order to provide liquidity to fund working capital needs, service outstanding debt,
fund future capital expenditures and investment opportunities, and pay dividends. Free cash flow is presented to provide a means to evaluate shareholder returns. Other non-GAAP
financial measures, including those comparing our results to our diversified and North American peers, are presented to help the reader compare our performance with others in our
industry. The measures described above 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 should not be considered in isolation or used in substitute for other measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.
In addition to these measures, we have presented certain other non-GAAP financial measures for our peers based on information or data published by Capital IQ or Bloomberg and
identified in the footnotes to this presentation. Those non-GAAP financial measures are presented to provide readers with a comparison of Teck to certain peer groups over certain
measures using independent third-party data.
(C$ in millions)
2003 to
Q3 2018
Cash Flow from Operations $42,001
Debt interest and finance charges paid (5,059)
Capital expenditures, including capitalized stripping costs (20,806)
Free Cash Flow $16,136
Dividends paid $4,187
Payout ratio 26%
Reconciliation of Free Cash FlowReconciliation of Gross Profit
Before Depreciation and Amortization
(C$ in millions)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Gross profit $ 3,610
Depreciation and amortization 1,083
Gross profit before depreciation and amortization $ 4,693
Reported as:
Steelmaking coal $ 2,770
Copper 1,096
Zinc 807
Energy1 20
Gross profit before depreciation and amortization $ 4,693
1. Energy results are effective from June 1, 2018.

171
Reconciliation of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA
(C$ in millions)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Profit attributable to shareholders $ 2,674
Finance expense net of finance income 161
Provision for income taxes 1,104
Depreciation and amortization 1,083
EBITDA $ 5,022
Add (deduct):
Debt purchase (gains) losses 26
Debt prepayment option (gains) losses 9
Asset sales and provisions (885)
Foreign exchange (gains) losses (23)
Collective agreement charges 1
Other items (15)
Adjusted EBITDA $ 4,135
Reconciliation of Basic Earnings Per Share
to Adjusted Basic Earnings Per Share
(C$ in millions)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Earnings per share $ 4.66
Add (deduct):
Debt purchase (gains) losses 0.03
Debt prepayment option (gains) losses 0.02
Asset sales and provisions (1.41)
Foreign exchange (gains) losses (0.01)
Other items (0.03)
Adjusted basic earnings per share $ 3.26
Reconciliation of Diluted Earnings Per Share
to Adjusted Diluted Earnings Per Share
(C$ in millions)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Diluted earnings per share $ 4.59
Add (deduct):
Debt purchase (gains) losses 0.03
Debt prepayment option (gains) losses 0.02
Asset sales and provisions (1.39)
Foreign exchange (gains) losses (0.01)
Other items (0.03)
Adjusted diluted earnings per share $ 3.21

172
(C$ in millions)
(A)
Twelve months ended
December 31, 2017
(B)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2017
(C)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
(A-B+C)
Twelve months ended
September 30, 2018
EBITDA (D) $ 5,589 $ 4,026 $ 5,022 (E) $ 6,585
Adjusted EBITDA (A) 5,697 4,197 4,135 (B) 5,635
Total debt at period end 6,369 5,235
Less: cash and cash equivalents at period end (952) (1,483)
Net debt (F) 5,417 (G) 3,752
Equity (J) 19,993 (K) 22,466
Net debt to EBITDA ratio (F/D) 1.0 (G/E) 0.6
Net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio (F/A) 1.0 (G/B) 0.7
Net debt to net debt-plus-equity (F/(F+J)) 21% (G/(G+K)) 14%
Reconciliation of Net Debt-to-Adjusted EBITDA Ratio & Net Debt-to-Debt-Plus-Equity Ratio
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.

173 1. Average period exchange rates are used to convert to US$ per tonne equivalent.
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Cost of sales as reported $ 2.454
Less:
Transportation (720)
Adjusted cash cost of sales $ 1,185
Tonnes sold (millions) 19.4
Per unit costs (C$/t)
Adjusted cash cost of sales $ 61
Transportation 37
Cash unit costs (C$/t) $ 98
US$ AMOUNTS
Average exchange rate (C$/US$) $ 1.29
Per unit costs (US$/t)1
Transportation 29
Cash unit costs (US$/t) $ 76
Steelmaking Coal Unit Cost Reconciliation

174
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Revenue as reported $ 2,081
By-product revenue (A)1 (361)
Smelter processing charges 116
Adjusted revenue $ 1,836
Cost of sales as reported $ 1,342
Less:
Inventory write-downs (3)
Collective agreement charges (1)
By-product cost of sales (B)1 (46)
Payable pounds sold (millions) (C) 470.5
Adjusted per unit cash costs (C$/lb)
Adjusted cash cost of sales $1.99
Smelter processing charges 0.24
Total cash unit costs (C$/lb) $2.23
Cash margin for by-products (C$/lb) ((A-B)/C)1 (0.67)
Net cash unit costs (C$/lb)2 $1.56
1. By-products include both by-products and co-products. By-product cost of sales also includes cost recoveries associated with our streaming transactions.
2. Net unit cash cost of principal product after deducting co-production and by-product margins per unit of principal product and excluding depreciation and amortization.
3. Average period exchange rates are used to convert to US$ per pound equivalent.
Copper Unit Cost Reconciliation
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
US$ AMOUNTS
Adjusted per unit costs (US$/lb)3
Adjusted cash cost of sales $ 1.54
Total cash unit costs (US$/lb) $ 1.73
Cash margin for by-products (US$/lb) (0.52)
Net cash unit costs (US$/lb) $1.21

175
1. Red Dog and Pend Oreille.
2. By-products include both by-products and co-products.
3. Net cash unit cost of principal product after deducting co-production and by-product margins per unit of principal product and excluding depreciation, amortization and
royalty costs.
4. Average period exchange rates are used to convert to US$ per pound equivalent.
Zinc Unit Cost Reconciliation (Mining Operations)1
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Revenue as reported $ 2,274
Less:
Trail Operations revenue, as reported (1,549)
Other revenues as reported (6)
Add back: Intra-segment as reported 501
$ 1,220
By-product revenue (A)2 (219)
Smelter processing charges 182
Adjusted revenue $ 1,183
Cost of sales as reported $ 1,611
Less:
Trail Operations cost of sales, as reported (1,486)
Other costs as reported 7
Add back: Intra-segment as reported 501
$ 633
Less:
Royalty costs (215)
By-product cost of sales (B)2 (50)
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Payable pounds sold (millions) (C) 687.8
Adjusted per unit cash costs (C$/lb)
Total cash unit costs (C$/lb) $ 0.67
Cash margin for by-products (C$/lb) (A/C)2 (0.25)
Net cash unit costs (C$/lb)3 $ 0.42
US$ AMOUNTS
Adjusted per unit costs (US$/lb)4
Total cash unit costs (US$/lb) $ 0.52
Cash margin for by-products (US$/lb) (0.19)
Net cash unit costs (US$/lb) $0.33

176
1. Results for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 are effective from June 1, 2018.
2. Revenue is reported after deduction of crown royalties.
3. Calculated per unit amounts may differ due to rounding.
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.
Blended Bitumen Price Realized
Reconciliation1
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Less:
Non-proprietary product revenue (18)
Add back: Crown royalties2 (D) 10
Adjusted revenue (A) $ 191
Cost of sales as reported $ 300
Less: Depreciation and amortization (33)
Cash cost of sales $ 267
Less:
Cost of non-proprietary product (12)
Transportation for non-proprietary product (3)
Transportation for FRB (C) (32)
Adjusted cash cost of sales (E) $ 132
Blended bitumen barrels sold (000s of barrels) 4,267
Less: diluent barrels included in blended bitumen (000s of
barrels) (865)
Bitumen barrels sold (000s of barrels (B) 3,402
Energy Operating Netback Reconciliation1
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Less: Non-proprietary product revenue (18)
Add back: Crown royalties2 10
Blended bitumen revenue (A) $ 279
Blended bitumen barrels sold (000s of barrels) (B) 4,267
Blended bitumen price realized (C$/barrel)3 (A/B)=D $ 65.60
Average exchange rate (C) 1.31
Blended bitumen price realized (US$/barrel)3 (D/C) $ 50.14
Nine months ended
September 30, 2018
Per barrel amounts (C$/barrel)3
Bitumen price realized (A/B) $ 56.47
Crown royalties (D/B) (3.08)
Transportation (C/B) (9.43)
Operating costs (E/B) (38.84)
Operating netback (C$/barrel) $ 5.12

177
(C$ in millions) Nine months ended September 30, 2018
Coal Copper Red Dog Other1 Teck
Earnings before taxes per segmented note 2,157 484 544 619 3,804
Adjust non-controlling interest (NCI) for earnings attributable to shareholder (29) 3 - - (26)
Depreciation & amortization 549 357 78 99 1,083
Net finance expense 37 32 22 70 161
EBITDA (A) 2,714 876 644 788 5,022
Revenue (B) 4,675 2,081 1,151 1,410 9,317
EBITDA Margin (A/B) 58% 42% 56% 56% 54%
1. Other includes Energy business unit, Corporate business unit and the Zinc business unit without Red Dog.
Reconciliation of EBITDA Margin
(C$ in millions) October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2018
Gross Profit $16,228
Add back: Depreciation and amortization 6,156
Gross profit, before depreciation and amortization $22,384
Deduct: Other costs (419)
Adjusted EBITDA $21,965
Reconciliation of Coal Business Unit Adjusted EBITDA

2019 Whistler Institutional Investor Conference

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to 2019 Whistler Institutional Investor Conference

More from TeckResourcesLtd

Recently uploaded

2019 Whistler Institutional Investor Conference