TSX:Ni

January 2016

World‐Class,Shovel‐Ready, Nickel Sulphide Project

Highest‐Quality Frac Sand Product Available in the Canadian Market

TSX:Ni

One Company, Two Compelling Investment Opportunities

TSX:Ni

2

Victory NickelCompany Profile

Ni:TSX – Share Capital StructureShares Outstanding ~57.6 million

Fully Diluted Shares* ~79.7 million

Market Capitalization (June 16, 2015) $3.2 million

Debt (incl. $5.15 M secured line of credit; $6 M unsecured convertible notes)

$11.15 million

Major Shareholders

• A&M International 9.5%• Jien International 9.2%• Management & Directors 2.0%

*~3.5 M options ($0.73 average exercise price); warrants ~14 M ($0.45 average exercise price).

Victory Silica Ltd.

(100%)

Victory Nickel Inc.

TSX:Ni

Supplying Canada with Highest Quality Frac Sand

Multi‐Phased Business Plan Phase 1 complete Sales on‐going Phase 2 approved by board Ownership of Wisconsin and Manitoba

frac sand resources Permitting of Wisconsin property 

underway Phase 3 Winnipeg site selection ongoing Development of domestic and additional 

Wisconsin sand programs are in progress

3

One CompanyTwo Compelling Investment Opportunities

Well Positioned for Resurgence in Nickel Market

Four Nickel Projects in Canada:

Over 1 billion lbs nickel in M&I resource

Flagship Minago Project in Manitoba: 

Feasibility study complete, permitted for development

Frac sand co‐product at Minago

TSX:Ni

44

Company HistoryFrom Nickel to Frac Sand

2007: Victory Nickel created

2009:  Feasibility study for Minago: significant frac sand by‐product value identified

2011:  Minago permitted for production

2011‐12: Meaningful decline in nickel prices

2012:  Victory Silica created to help unlock value of frac sand at Minago

2013:  A multi‐phased frac sand business created, independent of, yet complimentary to Minago

Q1 2014: Proof of concept: first frac sand sales

Q3 2014: 7 Persons plant commissioning completesales on‐going, operating cash flow 

Q4 2014: Option signed to acquire WI frac sand resource

Q2 2015: Temporary suspension of operations at 7Persons Plant. Sales underway again in May

Frac Sand

Nickel

TSX:Ni

Experienced ManagementVictory Silica Limited

5

René R. Galipeau /Chairman35+ years mining experience with Hudson Bay, Breakwater Resources, Lac Minerals, Rio Algom. Current Vice‐Chair & CEO of Victory Nickel.

Ken Murdock /CEO & DirectorEngineer with over 25 years experience in the aggregate/construction & oilfield materials/frac sand  industries. In addition to operating as an independent consultant in Canada and Wisconsin, frac sand industry experience includes Canfrac Sands (operations), United Industrial Services  (design, permitting, construction, operation and marketing of a silica sand project in Peace River) and Lafarge Cement. 

Troy Bergen /Plant Manager, Seven Persons Frac Sand FacilityOperated the Seven Persons frac sand facility between 2008 and 2010 with previous owner 3R Sand Ltd. Prior to that, he was Operations Manager with Clean Earth Environmental Ltd.

Jeff Bradley /Marketing & Logistics Representative10 years of operational and sales experience in Alberta’s oil &gas sector, including Cathedral Energy Services, Aaron Drilling, Colter Production Services and Opsco Energy Industries.

Sean Stokes /Corporate Secretary(See Victory Nickel Appendix)

TSX:Ni

66

Shale Gas / Tight Oil Revolution Frac Sand Boom

Unconventional ‘shale gas’ and ‘tight oil’ previously uneconomic to recover at a large scale

Efficiency gains in horizontal drilling and the introduction of ‘fracking’ helped unlock vast natural gas and oil resources

The rapid implementation of technology changed the North American energy landscape, with a “sand boom” being a resulting factor

Frac sand is an effective way to participate in North America’s rampant ‘unconventional’ oil and gas production growth

TSX:Ni

What is ‘Fracking’? Frac Sand?Not all sand makes frac sand! 

7

Hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ is a technique used in the development of oil & gas formations to increase flow and extend well life. Proppant (such as frac sand) holds or ‘props’ the formation open, increases porosity, and increases oil/gas flow to the wellhead

Frac sand must meet unique API specifications such as mineralogy, roundness and strength for use in the oil & gas industry as a proppant

Victory Silica’s 

Frac Sand

30/50 20/40

TSX:Ni

8

Proppant / Frac Sand Market: USHistorical & Projected Demand

28,337

37,185

48,498

34,827

46,815

55,975

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2012 2013 2014 2015E 2016E 2017E

US Raw and Resin‐Coated Frac Sand Demand ('000s tons) 

Source: PacWest, Cowen and Company, June 2015

Avg. Onshore Rig Count 1,759 1,697 1,856 963 1,178 1,200

TSX:Ni

9

Proppant / Frac Sand Market: CanadaHistorical & Projected Demand

6,554

4,944

7,109

8,6349,486

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2014 2015 2016E 2017E 2018E

Canadian Raw and Resin‐Coated Frac Sand Demand ('000s tons)

Source: Fortress Proppants Limited, Canadian Frac Sand Logistics & Market Forecast Summit, April 2015

TSX:Ni

10Source: PacWest, May 2015

Proppant Market: North America Historical & Projected Fracturing Activity

TSX:Ni

11

Proppant / Frac Sand MarketDynamic Demand

Modified from Source: Raymond James “North American Sand Rush” August 19, 2014

Increasing Frac Intensity Increasing Sand IntensityProjected Demand Increases Due To

Other Factors

Increasing rig count Re‐fracking of wells Uncompleted wells inventory

TSX:Ni

12

479 

565 

367 

409 

471 

37.2 

48.5 

34.8 

46.8 

56.0 

77.63 85.84 

94.90 

114.46 118.84 

 ‐

 100

 200

 300

 400

 500

 600

 ‐

 20.0

 40.0

 60.0

 80.0

 100.0

 120.0

 140.0

Frac Stage

s (#)

Total M

arke

t & Ton

s/Stage (‘0

00s T

ons)

Frac Stages Proppant  Market Tons/Stage2013               2014                2015              2016               2017

Proppant Market: USGrowth in Market Size, Stages and Tons per Stage

Source: PacWest, Cowen and Company, 2015

TSX:Ni

13

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., North Dakota

North American Shale BasinsInitial Supply Opportunities

Winnipeg

Minago

Wisconsin Mine

Medicine Hat (Seven Persons)

TSX:Ni

14

Victory Silica Business PlanPhasedApproach –Clear Path for Growth

Phase 1: Market Entry

Seven Persons (dry) Plant: processing infrastructure in Alberta (500 ktpa)

Ship contracted (wet) sand from Wisconsin

Wash plant capability

Strategic storage capacity

Phase 3: Growth

Winnipeg (dry) plant: processing infrastructure in Manitoba (1,040 ktpa)

Site identified with favourablelogistics (CN, CP,BNSF)

Initially supplied from Wisconsin

Minago Sand

Longer‐term upside

Currently looking at smaller pit configuration to target fracsand only

Phase 2: Vertical Integration

Wisconsin mine JV including wash plant ownership/frac sand property option

Security of sand supply/quality control

Margin enhancement

TSX:Ni

15

Processing purchased import wet sand (concentrate) from Wisconsin

Seven Persons Plant Fully‐functioning sand plant on 22.4 acres

22,000 tons product storage capacity

$6.0 M capex to take dry plant capacity to 500,000 tpa (complete)

120,000 tpa wash plant capability

Phase 1: Market EntrySeven Persons Plant – Medicine Hat, Alberta

Phase 1

Annual Sales Capacity 500,000 tons

Estimated Margin $25/ton

TSX:Ni

16

22,519

39,121

47,515

13,721

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

To June 30, 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015

Victory Silica7 Persons Plant Production (Tons)

TSX:Ni

17

Frac Sand Price IndexFrac Sand Measured as a Component of PPI

TSX:Ni

18

Dry Sand Program

Ship dry, finished Wisconsin northern white frac sand by rail to Fort Saskatchewan transload

Enhanced pricing and margin due to closer proximity to customers in Grande Prairie and other plays where frac sand is currently in demand

7 Persons Plant available as back‐up in the event of rail/other supply disruptions

Domestic Sand Program

Supplying domestic and imported sand was always a part of initial Phase 1 plan; high demand for Wisconsin sand in 2014 put domestic sand sales on hold

Today’s market realities makes domestic sand more attractive for cost savings

7 Persons Plant has 120,000 tpa wet sand processing facility already on site; ~$150,000 capex to get wet plant up and running, when necessary

Victory SilicaOngoing Supplemental Programs

TSX:Ni

Phase 2: Vertical IntegrationWisconsin Property / Wash Plant

19

Secure sand supply, enhance margins Entered into option agreement to acquire 

Wisconsin frac sand property Approval from Board or Directors to proceed 

with Phase 2, including construction of a       1,000,000 tpy frac sand wash plant in WI

Oil price crash put this on hold Provides significant flexibility to adapt to 

market conditions

Phase 2 

Capex ~US$5.0 million

Annual Sales Capacity 500,000 tons

Estimated Additional Margin

$2.5 million/year

Source: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

TSX:Ni

Phase 3: GrowthWinnipeg Processing Site

20

Build processing facility in Winnipeg Lease existing rail‐supported industrial 

site

Construct new dry plant – 18 mos. from start

Supply from Wisconsin and area (Minago longer‐term supply option)

Target Western Canada (CN) and US Bakken (CP, BNSF) markets

Phase 3 

Capex ~US$30 million

Working Capital ~US$15 million

Annual Sales Capacity 1,040,000 tons

Estimated Margin $>25/ton

Winnipeg

Wisconsin

TSX:Ni

21

Victory Silica Relative and Implied Valuation

Calendar Year 2014($US)

Emerge EnergyServices

(NYSE: EMES)

Hi‐CrushPartners

(NYSE: HCLP)

US SilicaHoldings

(NYSE: SLCA)

FMSA Holdings 

(NYSE: FMSA)

Victory Silica (Forecast)

Phase 1,2 Phase 3 Phase 1,2,3

Cash Raised on IPO (For Peer Group) $140,000,000 $225,000,000 $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $11,000,0005 $30,000,000 $41,000,000

2014 Frac Sand (FS) Tons Sold 4,306,000 4,584,811 6,736,000 7,188,469 500,0005 1,040,000 1,540,000

Adjusted EBITDA (2014A) $131,866,000 $148,015,000 $246,213,000 $397,291,000 $14,500,0004, 5 $26,000,000 $40,500,0004

Adjusted EBITDA FS Segment (2014A) $121,893,000 $148,015,000 $198,791,000 $367,854,000 $14,500,0005 $26,000,000 $40,500,000

EBITDA / 2014 Frac Sand Ton Sold1 $28.31 $32.28 $29.51 $51.17 $29.005 $25.00 $26.30

Market Cap (Jun 19, 2015) $950,000,000 $1,197,000,000 $1,601,000,000 $1,467,000,000 $3,170,000 ‐ ‐

Enterprise Value $1,186,000,000 $1,407,000,000 $1,774,000,000 $2,602,000,000 $13,000,000 ‐ ‐

EBITDA (2015E)2 $84,030,000 $113,080,000 $137,890,000 $216,590,000 $4,500,0005

EV/EBITDA3 14.1x 12.4x 12.9x 12.0x 2.9x5

Average EV / EBITDA 2015E 12.9x 12.9x 12.9x 12.9x

EBITDA (2016E)2 $108,770,000 $165,200,000 $179,680,000 $266,200,000 $14,500,0005

EV/EBITDA3 10.9x 8.5x 9.9x 9.8x 0.9xAverage EV / EBITDA 2016E 9.8x 9.8x 9.8x 9.8xPeak EV / EBITDA 18.9x 18.0x 14.1x n/aNet Debt 2015E $229,000,000 $414,000,000 $257,000,000 $1,033,000,000 $11,500,000

Net Debt / EBITDA 2.7x 3.7x 1.9x 4.8x 2.6x ‐

1 ‐ Average of Emerge, Hi‐Crush, US Silica = $30.03/ton Implied Enterprise Value2 ‐ Consensus Estimates June 19, 2015 Thomson Reuters Assuming Victory EBITDA 2015E/ton estimates $57,860,000 $520,780,0003 ‐ Average of Emerge, Hi‐Crush, US Silica, FMSA = 8.1x Assuming $30.03/ton avg EBITDA: $193,100,000 $594,760,0004 ‐ Includes Phase 2 margin improvement; before Nuinsco debt repayment5 – Assumes full production from existing facility

TSX:Ni

22

Victory Silica Select Canadian Frac Sand Companies

Modified from Source: Raymond James “North American Sand Rush” August 19, 2014

Phase 1,2

Phase 3MB/WI 16/30 -100

16/30 -100

TSX:Ni

23

Minago ProjectNickel / Frac Sand Co‐Production

One of Canada’s largest undeveloped sulphide nickel resources

Positive feasibility study completed; permitted for production

Frac sand a significant value driver: US$2.90/lb Ni in co‐product value based on feasibility study

Superb location: Manitoba; road, rail, power access

11.2 million tonne frac sand resource, 2 billion tonne potential

Potential for smaller, less capital intensive pit configuration to target frac sand only

Valuable “CALL OPTION ” on nickel at $10.00/lb+

TSX:Ni

24

Minago ProjectNickel / Frac Sand Co‐Production

One of Canada’s largest undeveloped sulphide nickel resources

Positive feasibility study completed; permitted for production

Frac sand a significant value driver: US$2.90/lb Ni in co‐product value based on feasibility study

Superb location: Manitoba; road, rail, power access

11.2 million tonne frac sand resource, 2 billion tonne potential

Potential for smaller, less capital intensive pit configuration to target frac sand only

Valuable “CALL OPTION ” on nickel

TSX:Ni

Minago ProjectCo‐Product: Frac Sand

Feasibility Study Highlights

11.2 million tonnes marketable fracsand in pit footprint alone

Mined over first three years

Sales over 10 years

Co‐product value per pound of nickel = $4.04 (US$3.68); optimized: $3.18 (US$2.90)

Full details in feasibility study available on SEDAR

25

Frac Sand

Nickel

TSX:Ni

Minago ProjectFrac Sand Potential

Existing resource within current pit shell: 15 Mt

Existing & proposed quarry leases: 75 Mt potential*

Proposed quarry exploration permits: 475 Mt potential*

Entire land package (mineral leases + mining claims): 2 Bt potential*

26*Company estimates, non-compliant

TSX:Ni

27

Cash flow and robust cash flow growth: Initial sales made March 2014, plant commissioning complete, improved market understanding, clear path forward

Meaningful discount to peer group: U.S. peers U.S. Silica, Hi‐Crush, Emerge Energy Services, FMSA Holdings

Large domestic frac sand resource: Minago a longer‐term strategic asset; potential for smaller, less capital intensive pit configuration to target frac sand only

Large property position in Wisconsin: Frac sand property option agreement provides security of supply

A sustained resurgence in nickel prices could have a meaningful impact on Victory Nickel’s valuation: currently investors have a ‘free call option’ on Minago’s advanced nickel sulphide project

27

Victory SilicaInvestment Summary

The“Call Option”

Victory Nickel Inc.

TSX:Ni

Company ProfileNickel Projects

Four Advanced Sulphide Nickel Projects

Over 1 billion pounds of nickel in Measured and Indicated resources and 300 million pounds of Inferred resources, NI 43‐101 compliant

Lynn Lake optioned to Corazon Mining

29

TSX:Ni

Minago ProjectThe Property

Well‐located

Sulphide nickel deposit

Exceptional metallurgy

Open pit and underground mining potential

Bankable feasibility study on open pit only

Exceptional exploration upside

30

TSX:Ni

Minago ProjectReserves and Production Upside

Nose Deposit open pit:8.6‐year mine life

Feasibility study does not include:

Nose Deposit U/G (inferred resource)

North Limb: Exploration target

Mineralization open to west, north and at depth

Combined resources projected mine life of >20 years

31

TSX:Ni

Minago ProjectNickel Concentrate Assay

32

Assay Component Unit ValueNi % 22.3Cu % 1.4Co % 0.46Pt g/t 2.47Pd g/t 6.31Au g/t 0.63Ag g/t 4.3Rh g/t 0.59S % 24.4Fe % 17.0

MgO % 10.4SiO2 % 12.7Al % 0.11As g/t 61.0Ba g/t 61.0Be g/t 0.10Bi g/t <20Ca % 2.0Cd g/t <4Cr g/t 410

Assay Component Unit ValueHg g/t <0.3K g/t 410Li g/t <5Mn g/t 270Mo g/t 22Na g/t 240P g/t 131Pb % 0.097Sb g/t <30Se g/t <40Sn g/t <20Sr g/t 40Ti g/t 200Tl g/t <30U g/t <60V g/t <20Y g/t <10Zn % 0.18Cl % 0.044F % 0.066

TSX:Ni

Minago ProjectFeasibility Study Optimization

33

Minago Sulphide Nickel Project: Economic Summary Comparison

Base CaseDec. 14, 20091

($million except % & yrs)

Base CaseJuly 19, 20111,2

($million except % & yrs)At Today’s Metal Prices

Undiscounted cash flow 917.7 1,418.4 951.3

NPV @ 8% 293.8 513.0 278.0

NPV @ 6% 402.6 669.3 392.6

IRR 17.7% 22.4% 16.5%

Pre‐Production Capital 593.0 585.1 558.0

1. Three‐year trailing average US$ metal prices and exchange rate as of market close December 10, 2009: Ni: $11.19/lb; Cu: $2.91/lb; Pd: $322.4/oz; Pt: $1,353.98/oz; Au: $836.25/oz; Co: $27.73/lb; Ag: $14.25/oz; $Can/$US exchange rate: 1.097

2. Updated resource

TSX:Ni

Minago ProjectCost Summary

34

C1Cash Cost Per lb Ni  Feasibility Study AfterOptimization

Net of Credits * US $1.94 (C$2.12) US $2.20 (C$2.41)

Metal By‐Product Credits

US $0.72 (C$0.79) US $0.77 (C$0.85)

Frac Sand By‐ProductValue

US $3.68 (C$4.04) US $2.90 (C$3.18)

Cash Cost per lb Nickel Before Credits 

US $6.34 (C$6.95) US $5.87 (C$6.44)

*Net C1 costs increase when metal production increases without corresponding frac sand increase (same size pit)

TSX:NiMel ProjectOverview

100% owned25 km north of ThompsonNear‐surface, ramp/pit‐accessible resource

Direct ship potentialMilling agreement with Vale at cash cost +5%*

Ongoing economic evaluationMetallurgical testing

Classification Tonnes(millions)

Grade(% Ni)

In‐Situ Nickel(millions lb)

Mel**

Indicated 4.3 0.875 83

Inferred 1.0 0.839 19*Provided the product meets Vale specifications and that Vale has sufficient mill capacity**At 0.5% nickel cut-off

35

TSX:NiLac Rocher ProjectOverview

Near‐surface deposit, high‐grade component, direct‐ship potential

PEA indicates break‐even ~C$10 Ni/lb and C$3.84/lb Cu

EIS submitted, access road complete

On‐site upgrading: DMS, optical sorting being evaluatedClassification Tonnes

(millions)Grade(% Ni)

In‐Situ Nickel(millions lb)

Lac Rocher**

Measured 0.29 1.23 8

Indicated 0.51 1.05 12

Total M&I 0.80 1.12 20

Inferred 0.44 0.65 6**At 0.5% nickel cut‐off36

TSX:Ni

37

René R. Galipeau /CEO & Director –Victory Nickel Inc.30+ years mining experience with Hudson Bay, Breakwater Resources, Lac Minerals, Rio Algom

Steve Harapiak /President & COO –Victory Nickel Inc.Engineer with 30+ years experience, including Hudson Bay, Noranda, Denison and CEO of Potash Corp. (Crown Corp.)

Sean Stokes /VP Corporate Affairs & Corporate Secretary –Victory Nickel Inc.20+ years finance, business development, communications experience, incl. Tiberon Minerals, Liberty Minerals, Scandinavian Minerals, Nuinsco Resources

David Mchaina /VP Environment & Sustainable Development –Victory Nickel Inc.Ph.D. with 20+ years experience, including Boliden, Westmin, Goldcorp

Victory NickelManagement Team

TSX:Ni

Victory NickelQualified Independent Board

Cynthia Thomas /ChairMBA, 20+ years international mining and project finance, former Director Mining Investment Banking – ScotiaMcLeod

René R. Galipeau /CEO & Director 

Peter R. JonesEngineer, former CEO of Hudbay Minerals, 40+ years mining experience with Hudbay, Cominco, Cape Breton Development, Granduc Operating Co. and Adanac Molybdenum

Michael AndersonLawyer, nine years as General Counsel and Secretary with Denison Mines, previously a partner with Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, in‐house counsel with John Labatt, General Counsel for Swift Canadian

Roland Horst35 years mining experience as a CEO, banker, investment banker and geologist

38

TSX:NiDisclaimer

Some of the statements contained in the following material may be "forward‐looking statements." All statements, other than statements ofhistorical fact, that address activities, events or developments that Victory Nickel believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the futureare forward‐looking statements. Forward‐looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "seek,""anticipate," "believe," "plan," "estimate," "expect," and "intend" and statements that an event or result "may," "will," "can," "should,""could," or "might" occur or be achieved and other similar expressions. These forward‐looking statements reflect the current expectations orbeliefs of Victory Nickel based on information currently available to Victory Nickel. Forward‐looking statements are subject to a number of risksand uncertainties that may cause the actual results of Victory Nickel to differ materially from those discussed in the forward‐looking statements,and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to,or effects on Victory Nickel. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations include, among otherthings, failure to successfully complete intended financings, capital and other costs varying significantly from estimates, production rates varyingfrom estimates, changes in world copper and/or gold markets, changes in equity markets, uncertainties relating to the availability and costs offinancing needed in the future, equipment failure, unexpected geological conditions, imprecision in resource estimates, success of futuredevelopment initiatives, competition, operating performance of facilities, environmental and safety risks, delays in obtaining or failure to obtainnecessary permits and approvals from government authorities, and other development and operating risks. Any forward‐looking statementspeaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, Victory Nickel disclaims any intent orobligation to update any forward‐looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. AlthoughVictory Nickel believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward‐looking statements are reasonable, forward‐looking statements are notguarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.

Victory Nickel resources are as follows: Minago: Measured: 11.1 million tonnes grading 0.56% Ni, Indicated: 43.1 million tonnes grading 0.51%Ni, Inferred: 14.6 million tonnes grading 0.53% Ni; Lynn Lake: Measured: 1.0 million tonnes grading 0.76% Ni, Indicated: 21.9 million tonnesgrading 0.56% Ni, Inferred: 8.1 million tonnes grading 0.51% Ni; Mel: Indicated: 4.3 million tonnes grading 0.88% Ni, Inferred: 1.0 million tonnesgrading 0.84% Ni; Lac Rocher: 0.29 million tonnes grading 1.23% Ni, Indicated: 0.51 million tonnes grading 1.05% Ni, inferred: 0.44 million tonnesgrading 0.65% Ni.

The mineral resources were estimated using the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on MineralResources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIMCouncil December 11, 2005.

39