[PPT] - Golden Meadows Project Idaho, USA Photo courtesy of the Idaho PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Photo courtesy of the Idaho Historical Society Ref# 80-57-11 Stibnite – looking into the pit (1940s)

Golden Meadows Project

Idaho, USA

Jan. 17, 2013

SLIDE 2

GOLDEN MEADOWS

All of the pieces for a world class gold-antimony project

2

Multi-million

unce Gold

Resource High Grade Low Geopolitical Risk Large Scale Production Production Proven Metallurgy Exploration Upside Strategic By-products 100% Owned & Royalty Free Robust PEA Lowest Quartile Costs Upside Opportunities Past Producing Brownfields Site Superior Returns 14 Year Mine Life

SLIDE 3

Indicated 4.20 Moz Inferred 2.90 Moz

Golden Meadows

MULTI-MILLION OUNCE RESOURCE

Large, high grade open pit resources with room to grow

3

Indicated 0.93 Moz Inferred 0.39 Moz

Hangar Flats

Indicated 1.50 Moz Inferred 0.61 Moz

West End

Indicated 1.80 Moz Inferred 1.90 Moz

Yellow Pine

3 kilometres

* See NI43-101 slide at the back of this presentation for responsibility and disclaimers. Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic

viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss

and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are normally considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to measured and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied.

50km of new drilling to be incorporated into new resource estimate by end of Q1/13

1.65 g/t 1.95 g/t 1.44 g/t 1.61 g/t

SLIDE 4

HIGH GRADE

Golden Meadows has above average grade for open pit deposits

4

2.4 2.3

1.95

1.8

1.61 1.44

1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

1.0

2.0 3.0

Grade (g/t Au)

Source: RBC Compilation from Metals Economics Group & public disclosure

Golden Meadows average grade 1.65 g/t

SLIDE 5

LOW GEOPOLITICAL RISK

Golden Meadows located in low risk, mining friendly Idaho

5

Maplecroft identifies and monitors the key issues affecting the investment climates of 197 countries. The Atlas analyses yearly trends relating to dynamic risks, which reflect change over a short period of time, including governance, political violence, the macroeconomic environment, and included this year for the first time, resource nationalism. It also includes structural risks which reflect change over a longer timeframe, including economic diversification, resource security, infrastructure quality, the resilience

f society to challenges, and the risk of complicity in human rights

violations committed by regimes and business partners.

Golden Meadows Project

Midas Gold Au-Sb

Thompson Creek Mine Thompson Creek Mining Mo Phosphate District Agrium, Monsanto, Simplot, Stonegate Sunshine Mine Sunshine Silver Mines Ag Lucky Friday Mine Hecla Mining Company Ag-Pb-Zn Idaho Cobalt Project Formation Metals Co-Cu

Coeur d’Alene Cascade

BOISE

IDAHO

SLIDE 6

PAST PRODUCING BROWNFIELDS SITE

Redevelopment of an area actively mined 1928-97 with concurrent reclamation

6

Project area has extensive history of mining

Brownfields site, heavily disturbed
Good access with local infrastructure

and workforce

SLIDE 7

PRODUCTION SCALE

Potential for large scale, low cost gold-antimony mine

7

$200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Morelos Aurora Black River Otijikoto

Net Cash Costs (1) (US$/oz of gold) Annual Production (000s oz of gold)

PEA PFS FS Size of globe = initial CAPEX

Metates Caspiche Detour Livengood Blackwater Courageous Lake

GOLDEN MEADOWS Yr 1-8 GOLDEN MEADOWS LOM

Kiaka Volcan Brucejack Magino Amulsar Rainy River Esaase Bombore Obaton Eagle Gold Toroparu Angostura Mt Henry Yellowknife North Bullfrom Almas Miraflores Goliath Goldfield New Liberty Sugar Coringa Karma Pantanillo Curraghinalt Ollachea Upper Beaver Haile

(1) See non-IFRS measures below. Sources: Haywood Securities & Company Disclosure

SLIDE 8

PRODUCTION PROVEN METALLURGY

Proven through past production and extensive test work

8

Gyratory Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill Antimony Flotation Gold Flotation Pressure Oxidation Gold CIL & EW Antimony Concentrate Gold Doré Oxides High Sb Sulphides Tailings Sulphides

Sulphides at Golden Meadows have extensive history of:

High recoveries +/- 90%
Successful milling operations

(1920s through 1950s)

Test work by Midas Gold & prior
perators (e.g. Barrick, Hecla,

Bradley)

Concentrate only autoclave

Treat just ~10% of mill feed
Lower CAPEX and OPEX
Examples: OceanaGold’s

Macraes Mine (NZ), Agnico- Eagle’s Kittila Mine (FIN)

SLIDE 9

STRATEGIC BY-PRODUCTS

Potentially significant by-product credits

9

Flame Retardants 60% Batteries & alloys 20% Other uses 20%

Antimony Uses (USGS)

China 89% Bolivia 3% Russia 2% South Africa 2% Tajikistan 1% Other Countries 3%

World Antimony Production 2011 (USGS)

Supply Risk - China dominates world antimony

There is no US domestic antimony mine

production

The US is reliant on China for majority of

the antimony it consumes

Chinese supply is falling
Export restrictions since 2009

Potential for new U.S. legislation aimed at expediting permitting for strategic metals

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 Antimony ($US/lb)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

SLIDE 10

100% OWNED & ROYALTY FREE

First time in ~100 years the district is owned by one party

10

Historically this district suffered from fragmented ownership and high royalties

Prevented efficient exploration and

evaluation of true potential

Land package a mix of patented (privately held) and unpatented ground

SLIDE 11

ROBUST PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (1)

Large scale, low cost, open pit operation

11

Years 1-8 Life-Of-Mine (14.2 years) Base Case (At $1,400/oz gold) Annual Average Total Annual Average Total Gold (oz) 390,000 3,121,000 348,000 4,922,000 Antimony (M lbs) 9.9 79.3 6.4 90.6 Cash Costs (US$/oz) (2) (net of by-products) 331 425 Initial Capital (US$M) 879 Pre-tax NPV 5% (US$M) 2,136 After-tax NPV5% (US$M) 1,482 IRR (Pre-tax/After-tax) 34%/27% After-tax Payback (years) 3.0

(1) The economic assessment in the PEA is preliminary in nature and uses inferred mineral 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, and there is no certainty that this PEA will be realized. The inferred mineral resource used in the economic analysis represents 37% of the total life-tonnes considered. In this presentation, “M” = million, “K” = thousands, all amounts in US$ (2) See non-IFRS measures below

SLIDE 12

ROBUST PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

NPV levered to higher gold price

12

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 NPV (US$ millions) Gold Price ($/oz)

0% 5% 10%

Pre-tax NPV After-tax NPV Base Case Discount Rate

SLIDE 13

SUPERIOR RETURNS NPV vs. life of mine gold production 2011-12 Studies for Gold Projects (2)

13 Volcan Curraghinalt Caspiche Livengood Aurora Bombore Brucejack Magino Rainy River Back River Toroparu Courageous Lake Kiaka Morelos Blackwater 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Post-Tax NPV @ US$1,400/oz Gold (US$ millions)1 Life of Mine Gold Production (000s of oz)

1 Where NPV was not available at US$1,400/oz, it was extrapolated from available data 2 Source: Haywood Securities and company disclosure

Golden Meadows PEA PFS FS Size of globe proportionate to initial CAPEX

SLIDE 14

LOWEST QUARTILE COSTS

Golden Meadows is projected to be in the lowest quartile of industry cash costs(3)

14

$200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Morelos Aurora Black River Otijikoto

Net Cash Costs (1) (US$/oz of gold) Annual Production (000s oz of gold)

PEA PFS FS Size of globe proportionate to initial CAPEX

Metates Caspiche Detour Livengood Blackwater Courageous Lake

GOLDEN MEADOWS Yr 1-8 GOLDEN MEADOWS LOM

Kiaka Volcan Brucejack Magino Amulsar Rainy River Esaase Bombore Obaton Eagle Gold Toroparu Angostura Mt Henry Yellowknife North Bullfrom Almas Miraflores Goliath Goldfield New Liberty Sugar Coringa Karma Pantanillo Curraghinalt Ollachea Upper Beaver Haile

(1) See non-IFRS measures below. Sources: Haywood Securities & Company Disclosure

SLIDE 15

500
400
300
200
100

100 200 300 400

3
2
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Au Sb Construction

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITIES

Three key opportunities to enhance already robust cash flow

15 Antimony by-product credit calculated on approx. 17% of total resource substantially increases cash flow in Years 1 through 4 Project year

1) Upsize the plant modestly 2) Extend antimony credit for longer 3) Extend higher grade for longer

Average $305 million in after tax cash flow per year in first 8 years Undiscounted Cash Flow

SLIDE 16

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITY #1

Upsize the plant

16 16 Oxides Gyratory Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill Antimony Flotation Gold Flotation Pressure Oxidation Gold CIL & EW Antimony Concentrate Gold Doré High Sb Sulphides Tailings Sulphides

Upsizing (not twinning) key pieces

f equipment would increase

production and revenue while containing capital cost increases

SLIDE 17

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITY #2

Extend antimony credit for longer

17

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Contained Sb Material Tonnage (millions of tonnes)

Year

Oxide feed Sulphide feed Sulphide Sb feed Sb Contained (10klbs)

Mill Feed & Contained Sb Summary

14.2 Year Mine Life

Antimony by-product credit calculated on only 17% of total resource Potential to expand antimony resource to some additional portions

f the resource

High antimony feed

SLIDE 18

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITY #3

Extend higher grade for longer

18

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Grade (g/t) Mineralized Tonnage Mined (millions of tonnes) Year Yellow Pine Hangar Flats West End Gold grade

(Mineralized material mined in Year -1 is stockpiled and then processed in Year 1)

Extend higher grade material

ut for longer by:

a) Defining more Yellow Pine b) Defining something like Yellow Pine (e.g. Scout) c) Blending in very high grade material with lower grade material later in life

?

SLIDE 19

EXPLORATION UPSIDE

Expansion around existing deposits – Yellow Pine example

19

Historical drilling largely confined to historic claim boundaries, limiting the resource within those boundaries Aim to find more high grade ounces in and around existing Yellow Pine deposit Conversion of in-pit unclassified material

Potential to reduce strip ratio and

increase resources

SLIDE 20

EXPLORATION UPSIDE

Defined potential for new discoveries – Scout example

20

First of priority prospects to be drilled Significant gold-silver-antimony system Potential for enhanced by-product production

SLIDE 21

EXPLORATION

2012 geological, geophysical and geochemical programs

21

Successfully confirmed and extended areas of known or suspected mineralization and

utlined several new gold-silver-antimony

targets

SLIDE 22

EXPLORATION UPSIDE

Blue sky potential in a World Class Gold District

22

Existing deposits open to expansion

Yellow Pine, West End & Hangar Flats

Entirely new targets for:

Bulk tonnage

˃ e.g. Scout, Cinnamid-Ridgetop, Saddle-Fern, Rabbit

Small tonnage, high grade

˃ e.g. Garnet, Upper Midnight

Undefined airborne targets

˃ Mule, Salt & Pepper, Blow-out

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 < 1M oz 1-2M oz 2-5M oz 5-10M oz 10-30M

z

>30M oz # of Deposits Contained oz of Gold

Golden Meadows

(1) Source: Mineral Economics Group, RBC Capital Markets Rarity of >5m oz Gold Deposits Globally(1)

SLIDE 23

23

MOVING FORWARD

SLIDE 24

MAINTAIN SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT

Taking a proactive approach

24

Have a positive local impact now - be a good citizen :

Hire locally
Use local suppliers & contractors
Participate in local activities
Openness & engagement

Do more than is required:

Voluntary environmental remediation
High environmental and safety standards

SLIDE 25

DO WHAT IS RIGHT

Develop a Sustainable project

25

Design for closure Protect and enhance water quality, fisheries, wetlands, groundwater Engage, inform, consult and consider stakeholders’ input Demonstrate significant net local benefits

SLIDE 26

PERMITTING

A streamlined approach: The Idaho Joint Review Process

26

Mine Plan Analysis

Interagency Agreement

Plan Completeness
Scope of Work – Baseline Data Collection
EIS Alternatives; Effects; Mitigation
Draft / Final Permits & Plans
Reclamation Bonding
Public Involvement

Pre-Analysis Coordination

Approval/Administration & Coordination

Exploration Plans
Long-Term Data Collection Needs
Environmental & Reclamation Standards

Post-Permitting Phase

Interagency Coordination

Admin/Inspect/Monitoring
Compliance Actions
Plan & Permit Modifications
Reclamation / Closure

SLIDE 27

PERMITTING

Idaho has a thorough and clearly defined process

27

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) EIS STATE FEDERAL LOCAL

Initial Plan of Operations
NPDES – Water Discharges
Corps 404 - Wetlands
SWPPP – Stormwater
ESA – Consultation NOAA

Fisheries

Native Consultation
Cultural/Historical
Air Quality
Waste Rock Handling
Powerline R-O-W
Water Rights
Cyanidation
Plan of Operations
Reclamation Plan
Tailings Dam
Stream Channel Alteration
TMDL
Ground Water
Domestic Water Supply
Waste Water Treatment
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning
Local Health District
Building Permits
Road Use Authorization
Conditional Use Permit

FINAL PLAN OF OPERATIONS / RECLAMATION PLAN RECLAMATION BOND National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) EIS

SLIDE 28

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

2012 milestones and near-term value drivers

28

2012

Infill, step-
ut and

exploration drilling

Ongoing

exploration

Q2 2012

Resource

Update

Q3 2012

PEA

2013

Ongoing infill

and step-out drilling

Ongoing

exploration

Ongoing

studies in support of updated PEA

Q1-Q2 2013

Resource

update to include 50,000m of 2012 drilling

2H 2013

Updated PEA
Filing of

permits & EIS

SLIDE 29

WHY INVEST IN MIDAS GOLD?

Midas has the key components for success

29

Proven Management & Board

Large, High Grade, World Class Open-Pit Deposit

Low Geopolitical Risk Production Scale Production Proven Metallurgy Exploration Upside Strategic By-products 100% Owned & Royalty Free Robust PEA Lowest Quartile Costs Optimization Opportunities Community Support

SLIDE 30

30

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SLIDE 31

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE(1)

All Three Deposits comprising the Golden Meadows Project, Idaho

31 31 Mineral Resource Category Tonnes (000s) Gold Grade (g/t) Contained Gold (000s oz) Silver Grade(5) (g/t) Contained Silver (000s

z)

Antimony Grade(4)(5) (%) Contained Antimony (000s lbs) Open Pit Oxide(2) Mineral Resources Indicated 10,573 0.90 305 0.00

0.00%

122 Inferred 2,201 0.97 68 0.00

0.00%

178 Open Pit Sulphide(3) Mineral Resources Indicated 67,653 1.80 3,925 0.60 1,312 0.07% 108,385 Inferred 53,917 1.63 2,822 0.93 1,603 0.08% 92,606 Total Open Pit Oxide + Sulphide(2)(3) Mineral Resources Indicated 78,226 1.68 4,229 0.52 1,312 0.06% 108,507 Inferred 56,117 1.60 2,890 0.89 1,603 0.07% 92,784 Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 25, 2012

(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate. (2) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.42 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency. (3) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency . The antimony subdomain is further limited to discrete zones of mineralization with grades that exceed 0.1% Sb. (4) Where antimony grades are shown as “0.00” there is antimony present but it rounds to 0.00. (5) Antimony and silver were not estimated for the entire West End deposit and most of the Hangar Flats and Yellow Pine deposits due to a lack of sufficient assays, and are averaged into the totals at an assumed zero grade.

Mineral Resource Category Tonnes (000s) Gold Grade (g/t) Contained Gold (000s oz) Silver Grade (g/t) Contained Silver (000s oz) Antimony Grade (%) Contained Antimony (000s lbs) Open Pit Sulphide(3) Mineral Resources Indicated 9,999 2.31 743 3.15 1,012 0.49% 108,507 Inferred 8,639 2.08 576 5.04 1,400 0.49% 92,784

Antimony Subdomains(1) Mineral Resource, Yellow Pine & Hangar Flats Deposits

31

SLIDE 32

GOLDEN MEADOWS DEPOSIT CROSS SECTIONS

32

Yellow Pine West End Hangar Flats

SLIDE 33

PEA

Conceptual site layout

33

Southern access 3 pits Tunnel water diversion Mill feed stockpiles Plant & facilities area Waste rock:

On top of historic tailings & spent

heap leach ore

Backfill Yellow Pine pit

Tailings

Lined facility
Buttressed by waste rock

SLIDE 34

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Payable metal summary

34

5

10 15 20 25

50

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Payable Antimony (millions lb) Payable Gold and Silver (000s oz) Year Payble Gold (koz) Payable Silver (koz) Payable Antimony (Mlb)

Annual Average Gold (000s oz) Antimony (M lbs) Silver (000s oz)

Yrs 1-8 390 9.9 39.9 LOM 348 6.4 23.7

*

* During Year 1, mill is ramping up to full production

SLIDE 35

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Financial modelling assumptions

35

Assumption Value Gold price Variable ($1,200/oz to $1,800/oz) Silver price Variable ($20/oz to $30/oz) Antimony price Variable ($5.50/lb to $7.00/lb) Au & Ag metal recoveries Variable by deposit & type (oxide vs.. sulphide) Sb recovery 80% Au doré payable 99% Ag doré payable 95% Sb concentrate payable 65% Au doré refining/transport costs $8.00/payable oz Ag doré refining/transport costs $0.50/payable oz Sb transport, marketing, insurance, etc. $171.60/t Contingency Variable (from 5% to 25%)

SLIDE 36

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Operating cost summary (base case)

36

Area Unit ALL LOM Oxide LOM Sulphide LOM High Sb Mining (1)

$/t mined

1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 Mining (1)

$/t milled

7.78 7.78 7.78 7.78 Processing

Stockpile handling

$/t milled

0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

Crushing & grinding

$/t milled

2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83

Oxide Processing

$/t milled

0.82 5.53

Sb flotation

$/t milled

0.28

1.66
Au flotation

$/t milled

1.77

2.08

2.08

POX

$/t milled

7.87

9.23

9.23 G&A, Water

$/t milled

4.39 4.39 4.39 4.39 Total Unit OPEX

$/t milled

25.87 20.66 26.44 28.10 Cash Cost (2)

(excluding by-product credits) $/oz Au

532 (479 Yrs 1-8) Cash Cost (2)

(including by-product credits)

$/oz Au

425 (331 Yrs 1-8)

(1) Excluding Year -1 (pre-strip) capitalized mining costs (2) see non-IFRS measures below

SLIDE 37

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Capital cost summary

37

Area Initial Capital

($M)

Sustaining Capital

($M)

Closure

($M)

Totals

($M)

Mining Equipment & Pre-Stripping 121.9 107.2

229.1

Processing and Utilities 243.0 79.6

322.6

On-Site Infrastructure 93.1 38.8

131.9

Off-Site Infrastructure 67.0

67.0

Indirect Costs 148.9 19.4

168.3

Owner's Costs & Capital Spares 39.7

39.7

Closure

53.0

53.0 Contingency 165.7 4.7

170.4

Totals 879.3 249.7 53.0 1,182.0

SLIDE 38

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Financial summary

38

Gold Price ($/oz) Pre-Tax ($ millions) NPV (0%) NPV (5%) NPV (10%) IRR 1,200 2,549 1,464 834 26.6% 1,400* 3,580 2,136 1,296 33.7% 1,600 4,611 2,808 1,759 40.0% 1,800 5,642 3,480 2,221 45.8% Gold Price ($/oz) After-Tax ($ millions) NPV (0%) NPV (5%) NPV (10%) IRR 1,200 1,874 1,036 546 21.9% 1,400* 2,557 1,482 853 27.2% 1,600 3,233 1,923 1,157 31.9% 1,800 3,910 2,364 1,460 36.3%

SLIDE 39

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Pre-tax NPV5% sensitivities by case

39

Case Variable

Pre-tax NPV5% ($ millions)

Case A

CAPEX 1,667 1,464 1,262 OPEX 1,801 1,464 1,128 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 625 1,464 2,304

Case B*

CAPEX 2,339 2,136 1,934 OPEX 2,473 2,136 1,800 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,162 2,136 3,111

Case C

CAPEX 3,011 2,808 2,606 OPEX 3,145 2,808 2,472 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,700 2,808 3,917

Case D

CAPEX 3,683 3,480 3,278 OPEX 3,817 3,480 3,144 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 2,237 3,480 4,723

SLIDE 40

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

After-tax NPV5% sensitivities by Case

40

Case Variable

After-tax NPV5% ($ millions)

20%

Variance 0% Variance 20% Variance

Case A

CAPEX 1,176 1,036 889 OPEX 1,242 1,036 816 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 436 1,036 1,593

Case B*

CAPEX 1,619 1,482 1,344 OPEX 1,683 1,482 1,277 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 828 1,482 2,122

Case C

CAPEX 2,060 1,923 1,786 OPEX 2,124 1,923 1,721 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,193 1,923 2,652

Case D

CAPEX 2,501 2,364 2,227 OPEX 2,565 2,364 2,163 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,547 2,364 3,181

*Base case

SLIDE 41

41

Plant

Decontaminated, demolished,

recycled, rehabilitated

Remaining Tailings supernate

Treated for discharge or

evaporated

Tailings and waste rock dump

Rehabilitated and Meadow Creek

reestablished with discharge to Hangar Flats settling basin

Yellow Pine pit backfill

Rehabilitated and EFSF Salmon

River reestablished to facilitate fish habitat

Water diversion tunnel

Bulk-headed at both ends

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Closure concepts

SLIDE 42

RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

42

Short Term Long Term

Risks

Ability to complete infill drilling for 2013 PFS to convert inferred mineralization to indicated Permitting timelines and opposition to project Antimony market and the impact of alternate products on the process flow sheet

Opportunities

Secondary processing of antimony concentrate (Sb metal, Sb trioxide, sodium antimonate) Exploration success (e.g. Scout) &/or discovery of higher grade oz that would defer lower grades/margin oz to later Infill drilling within pit limits converting waste rock to resource Estimate Sb & Ag for full deposits

utside the 0.1% Sb shells

Geotechnical drilling steepening pit slopes, and reducing strip ratios Accelerated permitting through land swap &/or critical metals legislation Gold concentrate sales versus secondary gold processing Alternate oxide material flow sheet, e.g. Heap leaching Bulk flotation results in improved metallurgical recoveries, etc. Possible 25-50% increase in throughput

SLIDE 43

REGULATORY AFFAIRS

Steps

43

Use PEA to engage with regulators, communities, NGOs, other stakeholders

Consider and optimize options
Mitigate impacts
Demonstrate:

˃ Concurrent environmental & fisheries enhancement as part of overall mine plan ˃ A robust closure and final reclamation plan ˃ Significant local benefits through employment & business opportunities

Commence permitting of a mining and processing operation post-PFS

EIS/Plan of Operations

˃ Participation of USFS, US EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries at federal level, Idaho DEQ, Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, Idaho Dept. of Lands, Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game ˃ 50+ permits required

Continued community, NGO and stakeholder engagement

SLIDE 44

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Ongoing voluntary remediation

44

Midas is not waiting to address legacy impacts from historic mining:

Voluntary remediation program to reduce sediment loading of creeks

˃ 5,000 trees planted in 2011, 8,245 planted in 2012 ˃ 18.5 acres seeded ˃ 5 acres of historic disturbance reclaimed ˃ Dust suppression improvements to 11 km of public roads plus airstrip ˃ Replaced or repaired numerous culverts and creek crossings

High standards for earning a social licence:

Stakeholder engagement and participation
Conducting exploration to high standards

˃ Meeting or exceeding Best Management Practices ˃ Protecting water quality & fisheries

SLIDE 45

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Potential Economic Benefits (Base Case)

45

Significant positive impact already on-going:

Largest private employer in Valley County

˃ More than 70% from Idaho, half of which are from Valley/Adams counties

~90% of 2012’s $50+ million expenditures spent in Idaho, 90% of it locally

PEA estimates potential future benefits:

More than 400 direct employees for 14+ mine life
Average annual payroll of ~$20 million

˃ Salary levels forecast at more than double Idaho average

University of Idaho estimates 2.5 times as many spin-off jobs as direct jobs
Approximately $1,223 million in taxes payable over the 14+ year mine life:

˃ Federal: $800 million ˃ State: $220 million ˃ County: $3 million ˃ Excludes payroll taxes, state sales taxes, & income taxes paid by employees

SLIDE 46

46

REGULATORY INFORMATION

SLIDE 51

COMPLIANCE WITH NI43-101

51

The technical information in this presentation (the “Technical Information”) has been approved by Stephen P. Quin, P. Geo., President & CEO of Midas Gold Corp. (together with its subsidiaries, “Midas Gold”) and a Qualified Person. Midas Gold’s exploration activities at Golden Meadows were carried out under the supervision of Christopher Dail, C.P.G., Qualified Person and Exploration Manager and Richard Moses, C.P.G., Qualified Person and Site Operations Manager. For readers to fully understand the information in this presentation, they should read the technical report (to be available on SEDAR or at www.midasgoldinc.com by mid-September 2012) in its entirety (the “Technical Report”), including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to the information set out in this presentation that qualifies the Technical Information. The Technical Report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections or summaries should not be read or relied upon out of context. The technical information in the Technical Report is subject to the assumptions and qualifications contained therein. Some of the mineral resources at Golden Meadows are categorized as indicated and some as inferred mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are normally considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to measured and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied. Cautionary Note – The mineral resource estimates referenced in this presentation use the terms “Indicated Mineral Resources” and “Inferred Mineral Resources.” We advise you that while these terms are defined in and required by Canadian regulations, these terms are not defined terms under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Industry Guide 7 and are normally not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC. “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. The SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute SEC Industry Guide 7 compliant “reserves” as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. Midas Gold is not an SEC registered company. The resource estimation for the gold deposits at Golden Meadows was completed by David Rowe, C.P.G of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc. under the supervision of Guy Dishaw, P. Geo, of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc. The other Qualified Persons responsible for the PEA study are Gordon Doerksen, P.Eng., of JDS Energy and Mining Inc. (overall project management and economic analysis); Dino Pilotto, P.Eng., of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (mining); Bruce Murphy, FSAIMM, of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (mine geotech); Maritz Rykaart, P.Eng., of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (waste management); John Duncan, P.Eng. of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (water management); Chris Martin, C.Eng., of Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd. (metallurgy); Kevin Scott, P.Eng., of Ausenco Solutions Canada Inc. (infrastructure and mineral processing); and Rick Richins, BS, MS, of RTR Inc. (environmental considerations) – see the technical report for relevant assumptions and disclaimers.

NON-IFRS PERFORMANCE MEASURE

"Cash Operating Costs" is a non-IFRS Performance Measure. This performance measure is included because this statistic is a key performance measure that management uses to monitor performance. This performance measure does not have a meaning within IFRS and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. This performance measure should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with IFRS.

SLIDE 52

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

52

Statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are “forward-looking information” or “forward-looking statements” (collectively, “Forward-Looking Information”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward Looking Information includes, but is not limited to, disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action; the timing and costs of future exploration activities on the Corporation‘s properties; success of exploration activities; permitting time lines and requirements, requirements for additional capital, requirements for additional water rights and the potential effect of proposed notices of environmental conditions relating to mineral claims; planned exploration and development of properties and the results thereof; planned expenditures and budgets and the execution thereof. In certain cases, Forward-Looking Information can be identified by the use of words and phrases such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “potential” or “does not anticipate”, “believes”, “conceptual”, “base” case”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. Statements concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute forward-looking statements to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that may be encountered if the Golden Meadows Project is developed. In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, the Corporation has applied several material assumptions, including, but not limited to, certain assumptions as to production rate, operating cost, recovery and metal costs as set out in this presentation, that any additional financing needed will be available on reasonable terms; the exchange rates for the U.S. and Canadian currencies in 2012 will be consistent with the Corporation‘s expectations; that the current exploration and other objectives concerning the Golden Meadows Project can be achieved and that its other corporate activities will proceed as expected; that the current price and demand for gold will be sustained or will improve; that general business and economic conditions will not change in a materially adverse manner and that all necessary governmental approvals for the planned exploration on the Golden Meadows Project will be obtained in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; the continuity of the price of gold and other metals, economic and political conditions and

perations. Forward-Looking Information involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of

the Corporation to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factors include, among others, risks related to the availability of financing on commercially reasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds; operations and contractual

bligations; changes in exploration programs based upon results of exploration; changes in estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources; future prices of metals; availability of

third party contractors; availability of equipment; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; accidents, effects of weather and other natural phenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under U.S. federal and Idaho rules and regulations; impact of environmental remediation requirements and the terms of existing and potential consent decrees on the Corporation‘s planned exploration on the Golden Meadows Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation‘s dependence on one mineral project; the nature of mineral exploration and mining and the uncertain commercial viability of certain mineral deposits; the Corporation‘s lack of operating revenues; governmental regulations and the ability to obtain necessary licences and permits; risks related to mineral properties being subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title; currency fluctuations; changes in environmental laws and regulations and changes in the application of standards pursuant to existing laws and regulations which may increase costs of doing business and restrict operations; risks related to dependence on key personnel; and estimates used in financial statements proving to be incorrect; as well as those factors discussed in the Corporation's public disclosure record. Although the Corporation has attempted to identify important factors that could affect the Corporation and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in Forward-Looking Information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that Forward-Looking Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on Forward-Looking Information. Except as required by law, the Corporation does not assume any obligation to release publicly any revisions to Forward-Looking Information contained in this presentation to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

SLIDE 53

53

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tel: 778.724.4700 Fax: 604.558.4700 E-mail: info@midasgoldcorp.com Suite 1250 – 999 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC CANADA V6C 2W2