STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT MAX.TSX Idaho, USA MDRPF.OTCQX We can take - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

stibnite gold project
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT MAX.TSX Idaho, USA MDRPF.OTCQX We can take - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 1 STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT MAX.TSX Idaho, USA MDRPF.OTCQX We can take an area abandoned after 100 years of mining and use a sustainable approach to restore the environment September 2019 and develop a modern mining industry. 2


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1 1

STIBNITE GOLD

Idaho, USA

MAX.TSX MDRPF.OTCQX

“We can take an area abandoned after 100 years of mining and use a sustainable approach to restore the environment and develop a modern mining industry.”

PROJECT

September 2019

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

04

Cautionary Note

The presentation has been prepared by Midas Gold management and does not represent a recommendation to buy or sell these securities. Investors should always consult their investment advisors prior to making any investment decisions. All references to “dollars” or “$” shall mean United States dollars unless otherwise specified. 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

  • f action; and business objectives. In certain cases, Forward-Looking Information can be identified by the use of words and phrases such as "anticipates", "expects", "understanding",

"has agreed to" or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results "would", "could" or "may", "occur" or "be achieved". Although Midas Gold has attempted to identify important factors that could affect Midas Gold 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. 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, the industry-wide risks and project-specific risks identified in the technical report titled "Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho" dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March 28, 2019 (the "PFS") and summarized above; risks related to the availability of financing on commercially reasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds of such financing(s); operations and contractual obligations; 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 US 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 and development activities on the Stibnite Gold Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations; 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; risks related to mineral properties being subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title; changes in laws and regulations and changes in the application of standards pursuant to existing laws and regulations which may result in unforeseen results in the review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (including a joint review process involving the U.S. States Forest Services ("USFS"); uncertainty surrounding input to be received pursuant to the public comment period; risks related to unforeseen delays in the review process including availability of personnel from the USFS, State of Idaho and other agencies and regulatory bodies (including, but not limited to, future U.S. government shutdowns); uncertainty as to what further actions or steps, if any, the Nez Perce Tribe will take; risks related to opposition to the Stibnite Gold Project; risks related to dependence

  • n 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-3
SLIDE 3

3

We are driven by the belief that building a strong and successful business for our employees, partners and shareholders starts with doing business the right way. For a modern mining company, this means we designed a mining project that restores the environment, creates opportunity and benefits the surrounding

  • communities. We believe that economic success and environmental success are

inseparable, and this drives everything we do.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

World Class Gold Project (1,2) Strength & Support

HIGHLIGHTS

Midas Gold & the Stibnite Gold Project

  • IPO in 2011 with sole focus on advancing the Stibnite Gold Project,

Idaho, USA

  • ~US$182m spent on the Project since 2011
  • Low geopolitical risk › Idaho, USA – a stable mining jurisdiction
  • Brownfields site › Restoration of extensive prior disturbance
  • Positive 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study › US$832 million NPV & 19.3%

IRR (after tax at 5% discount rate) at $1,350/oz gold

  • Multi-million ounce deposit › 7th largest gold reserve in USA*
  • Size › 4 million oz gold produced over 12 year mine life
  • Superior grade › 1.7g/t gold; 4th highest grade open pit deposit in

USA*

  • Scale › 388,000oz gold/year (yrs 1-4) & 337,000oz gold/year (LOM)
  • Modest capital intensity › US$242/oz life of mine production
  • Low all-in sustaining costs › US$526/oz for first 4 years (cash cost +

royalties + sustaining capital), US$616/oz LOM

  • Strong after-tax cash flow › US$294 million/year (Years 1-4) &

US$254 million/year (Years 1-8)

  • Strategic by-products › Antimony + silver with production proven

metallurgy

  • Exploration potential › All deposits open to expansion and multiple

exploration prospects already drilled

  • Community Support › Strong local and state support
  • Key investors › Paulson, Barrick, Franco-Nevada and Teck
  • Corporate Depth › Experienced management team and strong

boards with local, state & federal experience

  • Funding › ~US$32.8 million cash at June 30, 2019

(1) The Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”) is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. (2) See non-IFRS measures at conclusion In this presentation, “M” = million, “k” = thousands, all amounts in US$, “LOM “ = Life-of-mine

* S&P Global

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Strong and supportive shareholder base

  • Major shareholders include: Barrick, M&G, Sun Valley, Franklin, VanEck, Teck Corp., Gabelli, Oppenheimer
  • 2013: Franco Nevada purchased a 1.7% NSR for US$15m
  • 2016 & 2019: Paulson invested US$25 million and US$5.8 million, respectively
  • 2018 & 2019: Barrick invested US$38 million and US$4.4 million, respectively

Shares Outstanding (at June 30/19) 270.5 million Options 19.1 million Warrants 2.0 million Convertible Notes 140.9 million Fully Diluted 432.5 million Market Capitalization

(Based on issued shares & share price of C$0.82)

C$222million

Haywood Securities Geordie Mark 604.697.6112 PI Financial Chris Thompson 604.718.7544 Cormark Tyron Breytenbach 416.943.6407 Paradigm Don Blyth 416.361.9892

ANALYST COVERAGE ESTIMATED SHAREHOLDINGS

15% 28% 13% 11% 6% 4% 22% 1%

Institutional Paulson Barrick High Net Worth Individuals Teck & Vista Directors & Management Retail & Other Franco Nevada (warrants)

19% 20% 4% 15% 8% 2% 32%

Institutional Barrick Paulson High Net Worth Individuals Teck & Vista Directors and Management Retail and Other

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

ISSUED FULLY DILUTED

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Idaho: the right place

  • A mining friendly state – #5 Ranked Mining Jurisdiction in USA*
  • Well defined permitting process
  • Strong community and political support
  • Low geopolitical risk
  • Significant investments by senior mining companies:
  • Barrick, Kinross, Yamana and Agnico Eagle

Stibnite Gold Project

Midas Gold Au-Sb

Thompson Creek Mine Centerra Gold Inc. Phosphate District Itafos, Simplot, Stonegate Sunshine Mine Sunshine Silver Mines Lucky Friday Mine Hecla Mining Company Idaho Cobalt Project eCobalt Solutions

Coeur d’Alene Cascade

BOISE

IDAHO

McCall

Beartrack Mine Revival Gold DeLamar Project Integra Resources

NEVADA UTAH

Goldstrike Mine Barrick Gold Corp.

* Fraser institute Survey 2019

Twin Creeks Newmont Galena Complex Americas Silver

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8 8

Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS)*

December 2014 (at US$1,350 gold)

388,000 337,000 1,551,000 4,040,000 Years 1-4 LOM

Payable Gold Production

Average Annual Production Total Production 14.0 8.3 56.0 99.9 Years 1-4 LOM

Payable Antimony Production

(millions lbs) Average Annual Production Total Production

$970 $1,125

Capital Costs (US$ millions)

Initial LOM

* The 2014 PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. **Taxes as valid in 2014; does not account for 2018 reduction in US Federal Income tax rate from 35% to 21%.

$483 $568 $1,350

Cash Costs vs. Gold Price

(US$/oz) (2)

Years 1-4 LOM Gold Price

AISC $506 AISC $616

IRR

22.0% 19.3% pre-tax after-tax**

NPV5% (US$)

$1,093M $832M pre-tax after-tax**

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

ONE OF THE LARGEST, BEST GRADE GOLD PROJECTS

in the USA

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Pogo Bingham Canyon Marigold Fort Knox Bald Mountain Stibnite Gold (LoM)* Turquoise Ridge Cripple Creek & Victor Round Mountain Stibnite Gold (Yrs 1-4)* Newmont Nevada Barrick Nevada 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Castle Mountain Cripple Creek and Victor Bald Mountain Round Mountain Marigold Fort Knox Stibnite Gold Converse Turquoise Ridge Goldrush Livengood Hycroft Barrick Nevada Newmont Nevada Donlin 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Goldrush Round Mountain Haile Fort Knox Marigold Alaska Juneau Cripple Creek and Victor Castle Mountain Stibnite Livengood Turquoise Ridge Hycroft Barrick Nevada Newmont Nevada Donlin 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Bald Mountain Soledad Mountain Round Mountain Livengood Relief Canyon Mount Hamilton Wharf Newmont Nevada Gold Bar Goldfield Long Canyon Stibnite Haile Donlin Barrick Nevada Source: S&P Global – Market Intelligence *Based on the Stibnite Gold 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study; **Open-Pit Reserves >0.5Mozs gold Circled Projects denote Nevada Gold Mines/Projects

LARGEST US GOLD MINES 2018 Production 000s oz Gold LARGEST US GOLD RESOURCES M&I 000s oz Gold LARGEST US GOLD RESERVES P&P 000s oz Gold HIGHEST GRADE US OPEN PIT GOLD RESERVES P&P g/t Gold

3rd largest years 1-4 6th largest LOM 7th largest 9th largest 4th highest grade

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Cash Cost Summary* LOM Yrs 1-4

US$/oz US$/oz

Mining $222 $222 Processing $354 $312 G&A $77 $67 By-Product Credits

  • $85
  • $118

Cash Cost Net By Products $568 $483 Royalties $23 $23 Refining & Transport $6 $8 Total Cash Costs $597 $513 Sustaining Capex $24 $44 All-In-Sustaining Costs $616 $526 Reclamation and Closure $14

  • Initial Capital

$242

  • All-In Costs

$872

  • 2017 Gold AISC Cost

Curve

ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTS

Lowest Quartile Project, based on 2014 PFS*

Source: S&P Market Intelligence. 2017 All-In-Sustaining Cost, Primary Gold Mines Only.

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

All-In Sustaining Cost (US$/oz)

Stibnite Project

Yrs 1-4 LoM

* The 2014 PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11 From the Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining companies:

An overall Investment Attractiveness Index is constructed by combining the Best Practices Mineral Potential index, which rates regions based on their geologic attractiveness, and the Policy Perception Index, a composite index that measures the effects of government policy on attitudes toward exploration investment.

There are only 18 mines producing over 300k ounces per year in Tier-1 mining jurisdictions (USA, Canada and Australia) and only 5 are in the USA.

STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT: A RARE COMMODITY

Brazil 2 Dominican 1 Mexico 2 Peru 2 Suriname 2 Burkina Faso 1 DRC 1 Egypt 1 Ghana 3 Guinea 1 Mali 1 South Africa 2 Tanzania 2 Argentina 3 Indonesia 1 Papua New Guinea 2 Kyrgyzstan 1 Russia 3 Australia 8 Canada 5 USA 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Number of +300kozpa mines (bubble size = combined production) Fraser Institute Index (Overall Investment Attractiveness)

Size + Grade + Tier 1 Mining Jurisdiction

Source: Company Reports and Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies (2017)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

VALUE OPPORTUNITIES

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

(Based on Dec. 2014 PFS)

Leverage to gold price

NPV Sensitivities (US$)

US$1,200/oz Au(1) US$1,350/oz Au(2) US$1,500/oz Au(3) Project NPV @ 5% discount

(after tax)

$513M $832M $1,129M

(1) PFS Case A: $1,200/oz Au, $20/oz Ag, $4.00/lb Sb (2) PFS Case B (Base Case): $1,350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb (3) PFS Case C: $1,500/oz Au, $25/oz Ag, $5.00/lb Sb

* The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 US$1,200/oz Au US$1,350/oz Au US$1,500/oz Au NPV (US$ millions) Net Asset Value $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650 Project NPV (US$ millions) Gold Price ($/oz) 5% After-Tax 0% After-Tax 0% Pre Tax

Substantial NPV & Leverage To Gold Price

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Gold Producer Landscape

The Stibnite Gold Project is one of the

  • nly large-scale gold projects in

advanced development. Midas Gold is uniquely positioned to become the only US-based, >300k

  • z/yr stand alone producer.

The Midas Gold Advantage

FILLING THE VOID

*Midas Gold production assuming PFS LoM average annual Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents.

Midas Gold* New Gold Alamos SSR Roxgold Pretium TMAC Premier Atlantic Guyana Detour Argonaut Teranga Eldorado OceanaGold Wesdome McEwen 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 2019 Production Guidance (000oz Au Eq) Mkt Cap (US$M)

Stibnite Permitting, Construction, Production

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Strategic By-Products - ANTIMONY

Supply Risk

China dominates the world antimony supply and there is no domestic antimony or tungsten production in the United States. The U.S. is reliant on China for the majority of its antimony and tungsten and not

  • nly is Chinese supply falling, but export restrictions from China have

been in place since 2009. The potential exists for new U.S. legislation aimed at encouraging domestic production of critical minerals.

Antimony Uses 2018 (USGS) World Antimony Production 2018 (USGS)

Metal products 38.7% Non-metal products 30.5% Flame retardants 30.8% Australia 2.5% Bolivia 1.9% Burma 2.1% China 74.7% Russia 5.6% Tajikistan 9.7% Other 3.6%

Effectiveness of antimony flame retardant (left coverall)

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

Average Antimony Price/quarter (US$/lb)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16 16

Shrinking universe of quality gold developers

Gold M&A Thematics

Lack of publicly listed intermediate producers* and quality development assets stem from a decade of M&A and corporate activity by the senior gold production companies seeking growth.

Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents. *Companies and projects producing or with assets that could produce 200-500kozs pa

Advanced Gold Developers New Gold Producers

2019 Guidance: 160koz Mkt Cap: C$203M Guyana 2019 Guidance: 430koz Mkt Cap: C$1,850M Mexico

Acquired by Agnico, C$570M Acquired by New Gold, C$513M Acquired by Osisko, C$308M Acquired by B2, C$570M Acquired by New Gold, C$3100M Acquired by Rio Alto, C$300M Acquired by Goldcorp, C$526M Acquired by Oceanagold, C$856M Acquired by Goldcorp, C$520M Acquired by Eldorado, C$590M Acquired by IAMGold, C$585M Acquired by Kinross, C$1.2B Acquired by Goldcorp, C$1.5B Acquired by Argonaut, C$341M Acquired by Osisko, C$550M Acquired by Newmont, C$2.3B Acquired by Goldcorp, C$3.4B Acquired by Yamana, C$414M

Construction

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Robust gold & antimony recovery

PROCESSING

Jaw Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill Antimony Flotation Gold Flotation Pressure Oxidation Gold Leach & Recovery Antimony Concentrate Gold Doré

Oxides (~14%) High Sb Sulphides (~14%) Tailings Low Sb Sulphides (~72%)

SIMPLIFIED FLOW SHEET (PFS2)

2 The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation

is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

Tailings

PILOT TESTING COMPLETED1

1 See February 2018 news release for details

  • Higher gold (1-2%) and antimony (4-5%) recoveries
  • Coarser primary grind (85 vs 75 microns), reducing

energy and grinding media costs

  • Reduced reagent consumption in flotation, reducing
  • perating costs
  • On-site limestone for pH control, potentially

reducing lime consumption & operating costs

  • On-site limestone also increases environmental

performance, improves downstream gold recovery and reduces reagent consumption – potential for both environmental and economic benefits

Neutralization

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18 in indicated mineral resources1 between reserve pit and resource pit. 889k oz Au @ 1.7g/t Au in inferred mineral resources1 between reserve pit and resource pit 714k oz Au @1.5 g/t Au

OPPORTUNITIES

Mineral resources not in PFS

1 mine plan

1 The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of

  • context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and

qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

YELLOW PINE HANGAR FLATS

2 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 considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19 19

World Class Mineral Resources

* & Reserves **

2018 Resource* vs 2014 PFS Resource**

  • On a total project basis - 2% increase in M&I gold grade and

3% increase in gold contained in the M&I mineral resources

  • Yellow Pine - 6% increase in gold grade, 22% increase in

antimony grade & 31% increase in antimony contained in the mineral resources

  • West End deposit – 6% increase in gold contained in

indicated mineral resources and 49% increase in gold contained in inferred mineral resources Yellow Pine

Measured Indicated Inferred

Probable Reserves*: 2.5 Moz @ 1.97 g/t Au 0.1% Sb 0.38 Moz 2.53 g/t Au 0.25% Sb 2.5 Moz 1.99 g/t Au 0.10% Sb 0.15 Moz 1.18 g/t Au 0.76% Sb

Hangar Flats

Indicated Inferred

Probable Reserves*: 0.7 Moz @ 1.53 g/t Au 0.13% Sb 1.08 Moz 1.71 g/t Au 0.20% Sb 0.34 Moz 1.37 g/t Au 0.12% Sb

West End

Indicated Inferred

Probable Reserves*: 1.3 Moz @ 1.22 g/t Au 1.59 Moz 1.25 g/t Au 0.47 Moz 1.27 g/t Au

Historic Tailings

Indicated Inferred

Probable Reserves*: 102,000 oz @ 1.17 g/t Au 0.16% Sb 0.10 Moz 1.19 g/t Au 0.01 Moz 1.23 g/t Au

Totals for all deposits: PROBABLE RESERVES 4.6 Moz Au + 137 Mlbs Sb included in MEASURED & INDICATED 5.6 Moz Au, 204Mlb Sb and INFERRED 1 Moz Au & 21 Mlbs Sb RESOURCE*

* Mineral resources reported at $1,050/oz Au. Mineral reserves are from Dec. 15, 2014 PFS. ** See table and disclaimers at back of the presentation and Company news releases dated December 15, 2014 and February 15, 2018 for full details on the mineral resource and reserve estimates.

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Mineral Resources & Reserves, Prospects

Exploration potential

Existing Deposits:

  • Resource to reserve conversion
  • Resource/reserve expansion immediately adjacent to pits
  • In pit unclassified materials

Priority Prospects:

  • Small tonnage, high grade

e.g. Garnet, Scout, Upper Midnight

  • Bulk tonnage

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

  • Undefined airborne targets

e.g. 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

Stibnite Gold Project

(1) Source: Mineral Economics Group, RBC Capital Markets

Rarity of Global Gold Deposits >5m oz(1)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

EXPLORATION UPSIDE

High-grade exploration targets

NE Yellow Pine, including intercepts of:

  • 162ft @ 5.4g/t Au
  • 45ft @ 5.9g/t Au

Hangar Flats below pit, including intercepts

  • f:
  • 125ft @ 3.1g/t Au, 1.45% Sb
  • 249ft @ 1.6g/t Au, 2.5% Sb

Hangar Flats in the old DMEA workings area, which had intercepts of:

  • 84ft @ 3.6g/t Au
  • 157ft @ 5.1g/t Au, 0.30% Sb
  • 294ft @ 1.6g/t Au, 2.76% Sb
  • 125ft @ 6.6g/t Au, 0.51% Sb

West End, both along strike and deeper, including intercepts of:

  • Deeper: 127ft @ 2.9g/t Au & 230ft @ 2.3g/t Au
  • Along strike: 155ft @ 3.5g/t Au & 95ft @ 3.2g/t

Au

Garnet conceptual underground target with 95 holes completed:

  • 1-2m ton range containing 250

– 500k oz Au at grades of 5 – 8g/t Au*

Upper Midnight is a high grade prospect:

75ft @ 14.8g/t Au 100ft @ 6.7g/t Au

Scout is a high grade Sb prospect:

39ft @ 4.5 g/t Au & 1.7% Sb 550 ft @ 0.8 g/t Au & 2.0% Sb 124 ft @ 2.4 g/t Au & 0.5% Sb

EXPLORATION POTENTIAL AROUND THE PFS PITS HIGH GRADE UNDERGROUND PROSPECTS YELLOW PINE WEST END

* The potential quantity and grade 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.

35ft @ 11.3g/t Au 25ft @ 15.6g/t Au

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22 Invest $1 billion in Idaho Provide well-paid jobs to Idahoans Grow economic opportunity with an estimated $43 million in direct annual payroll during operations & $86 million in local and state taxes*

ECONOMY

INDUSTRY CAN REPAIR THE ENVIRONMENT

+

Reprocess historical tailings Restore fish passage Repair historically impacted waterways Remediate areas contributing to water degradation Rehabilitate habitat and natural vegetation Reuse materials on site

ENVIRONMENT

*Based on 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

HISTORIC MINING DISTRICT

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Stibnite: Restoring the site

An economically feasible, socially & environmentally sound project that will finance restoration at an existing brownfields site.

  • Re-establish fish passage in the upper

watershed

  • Rehabilitate stream channels and create

wetlands

  • Remove and reprocess existing tailings
  • Reuse existing spent ore & waste rock for

new construction

  • Rehabilitate historical impacts

The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

>$1 billion to be invested in Idaho ~1,000 well paid jobs 20-year project, including construction,

  • perations and

reclamation

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Brownfields site & restoration opportunity

Stibnite’s Legacy

EXAMPLE: FISH PASSAGE BLOCKED SINCE 1938 MIDAS GOLD WOULD RESTORE FISH PASSAGE

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26 26 EXISTING CONDITIONS THROUGH YEAR 1 YEAR 3 THROUGH YEAR 7 YEAR 8 THROUGH YEAR 50

INDUSTRY & ENVIRONMENT WORKING TOGETHER

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

SOCIAL LICENSE

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

  • 71 lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors - included leadership in

the Republican and Democratic caucuses in both houses

  • Resolution passed with 104 out of 105 legislators in favour
  • Lawmakers believe Midas Gold’s commitment to mine in a way

that restores and protects the environment can serve as a global template for the industry

  • Recognized Midas Gold’s involvement in the community,

commitment to building a mine that will help the community and the environment and the dedication to being a partner with local communities proves Midas Gold has the right team to undertake this Project

Idaho’s House of Representatives and Senate passed, with

  • verwhelming support, a joint memorial

asking the President of the United States, Idaho’s congressional delegation, the Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to take the steps necessary to approve the Stibnite Gold Project in a timely and cost-effective manner.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

Joint Memorial (Feb. 22/2018)

“The Stibnite Gold Project will be an economic win for Idaho and provide a huge opportunity for many families in my district and across the state. The Project with be a $1 billion investment in Idaho and bring hundreds of well-paying jobs to rural communities. These are jobs and this is an industry that people in Idaho welcome.”

  • Terry Gestrin (R-Donnelly)
slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

74.7% 20.7%

Favor

PUBLIC SUPPORT

Midas Gold Idaho, Valley and Adams County Public Opinion Survey, October 2017

Oppose

72.7% 17.3%

America First Global Trade

Favor or Oppose

Restarting Operations at the Stibnite Mining District?

Which comes closest to your opinion?

Idaho should lead the way by mining for precious metals here at home, putting America First and reducing our reliance on foreign Global trade is important to the American economy and it is

  • kay to import critical products

from countries like China.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

SUSTAINABILITY 2018

Living our values, every day.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. COMMUNITY

  • INVOLVEMENT. TRANSPARENCY. ACCOUNTABILITY.

SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE.

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Community Agreements

Yellow Pine Cascade Donnelly New Meadows Riggins Council Idaho County Adams County

GOAL: Commit Midas Gold now and into the future to regular communication and coordination with local communities. HOW: Community Advisory Council shall meet to get regular updates from Midas Gold and discuss topics of interest. GOAL: Commit to supporting the needs of the community before, during and after the project. HOW: Stibnite Foundation will share the profits of the Stibnite Gold Project at the discretion of the community board of directors. GOAL: Encourage communities to be knowledgeable of the proposed project, anticipate needs and participate in the public process. HOW: With no limits or expectations on content, ask that each community submit a letter to the US Forest Service regarding the Draft EIS.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

PERMITTING

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Stibnite Joint Review Process

The Joint Review Process is a coordinated process whereby Federal, State and Local regulatory bodies work together to facilitate permitting using a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

USFS:

  • NEPA EIS - Record of Decision on

the Plan of Restoration and Operations

  • Road Use & Power Line
  • Mineral Material
  • Timber Sale Permit & Contract

USACE 404: Wetlands & Streams EPA:

  • NPDES - Water discharges
  • SWPPP - Stormwater

USFWS/NOAA: Section 7 ESA - Endangered Species Consultation FCC: Radio Communications BATFE: Explosives Handling MSHA: Mine Identification Number, Legal Identity Report, Ground Control Plan

Federal Permits and Authorizations

IDEQ:

  • Air Quality
  • Cyanidation
  • 401 Water Quality Certification
  • Waste Water Treatment
  • Solid Waste Permits
  • Point of Compliance
  • Drinking Water

IDWR:

  • Water Rights
  • Stream Channel Alteration
  • Dam Safety (Tailings Dam)

SHPO: Cultural Clearance IDL: Reclamation Plan Approval

State Permits

  • Planning and Zoning - Conditional

Use Permit

  • Central District Health Septic
  • County Building Permits
  • County Road Use Authorization

Local Permits

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Stibnite Joint Review Process (Sept. 2017) Final Plan of Restoration and Operations, Reclamation Plan & Reclamation Bond

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34 Mining by previous

  • perators:

1 million oz gold 88 million lbs antimony 1 million lbs tungsten 100+ years Exploration, resource/reserve development & environmental studies 7 years

PROJECT TIMELINE*

Permitting, feasibility & social license

Permitting 4 years Operations, continued restoration and concurrent reclamation 388,000 oz Au/year (yrs 1-4) 337 oz Au/year (LOM) 12 + years Restoration & construction ~3 years Reclamation and closure

*indicative permitting schedule based on latest published government schedule

Permitting milestones

2016

Q3

2016

Q4

2017-2019 2019

Q4

2020

Q1

2020

Q2

2020

Q3

2020

Q4

PRO submitted to regulators First public comment period (public scoping) EIS project initiation,

  • ngoing

environmenta l studies,

  • ngoing

community & government relations, feasibility study work Draft EIS published Public comment period on draft EIS

Final ROD

Final EIS & Draft Record of Decision (“ROD”) Feasibility Study published

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

A B C

 Environmental baseline data collected to support EIS  Project extensively discussed with local communities and stakeholders  Plan of Restoration & Operations for mine development filed, declared complete

  • NEPA process (EIS) underway

Regulatory Process Underway  Experienced management team in place  Support of well-funded strategic investors Corporate Strength  PFS and post-PFS optimization completed  Metallurgical optimization test work completed  Resource optimization completed

  • Feasibility study pending

Feasibility Study Underway

PATH FORWARD

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

ADDITIONAL INFO

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

EXPERIENCED MANAGEMENT

We’ve done it before!

President & CEO (MGC)

Ex-COO Capstone Mining, ex-CEO Sherwood Copper, ex-EVP Miramar Mining

Stephen Quin Laurel Sayer Michael Bogert Darren Morgans Alan Haslam Mckinsey Lyon John Meyer Chris Dail Liz Monger Kyle Fend

President & CEO (MGII)

Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Lan d Trusts, ex-director of natural resource issues & policy for Idaho congressional delegation

General Counsel

Attorney, formerly with Parsons, Behle & Latimer, former counselor to US Interior Secretary, former regional

  • admin. of the US EPA Region 10 office

CFO

Ex-Terrane, Placer Dome, MIM and PWC

VP Permitting

Former Director of Mining for Agrium, recently led NEPA permitting of Rasmussen Valley Mine, Idaho

VP Public Affairs

Former Partner Gallatin Public Affairs, consultant for Monsanto and Agrium o n NEPA permitting

VP Development

Ex-Kinross, Aurelian, Barrick, Syncrude

Exploration Manager

Ex-Cominco, Asarco, Kennecott, Piedmont, USFS

Manager IR & Corp. Sec.

Ex-Rainy River and Rubicon Minerals

Operations Manager

Ex-Freeport-McMoRan, Cameco, North Wind

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS

Proven track record, local interests

Chair & Director

Ex-Goepel, director of Dundee Precious Metals, ex-director of Miramar Mining

Peter Nixon Jaimie Donovan Keith Allred

Director

  • Exec. Director – National

Institute for Civil Discourse, 2010 Democratic candidate for Governor of Idaho

Director

Former Head of Growth & Evaluations, Barrick

Brad Doores

Director

Attorney, former VP & Deputy General Counsel, Barrick

Marcelo Kim

Director

Partner, Paulson & Co

Stephen Quin

Director & CEO

Ex-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining & Northern Orion

Javier Schiffrin

Director

Partner, Paulson & Co

Donald Young

Director

Ex-KPMG, Placer Dome, director of Dundee Precious Metals

MIDAS GOLD CORP.

Chair & Director

Served four terms on McCall City Council, two as mayor. Resident of McCall, ID

Don Bailey Bob Barnes Shauna Arnold

Director

Massage Therapist, serves on local boards for organizations focussed on the arts and education. Resident of Cascade, ID

Director

Ex-COO Midas Gold, Ex-VP Ops Capstone, ex-Pan American, Goldcorp

Scotty Davenport

Director

Founding member of Valley County Economic Development Council, business owner in Valley County. Resident of McCall, ID

Anne Labelle

Director

Ex-VP Legal & Sustainability, Midas Gold, Ex- Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining

April Whitney

Director

Communications Director for Brundage Mountain Resort. Resident of McCall, ID.

Laurel Sayer

Director & CEO

Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Land Trusts, ex-director of natural resource issues & policy for Idaho congressional delegation. Resident of Boise, ID

MIDAS GOLD IDAHO, INC. (Idaho operating subsidiary)

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

2018 MINERAL RESOURCES

(in metric units, except oz; at US$1,050/oz Au, see Feb. 15/18 news release)

Classification Metric Tonnes (000s) Gold Grade (g/t) Contained Gold (000s oz) Silver Grade (g/t) Contained Silver (000s oz) Antimony Grade (%) Contained Antimony (000s lbs) Measured: Yellow Pine 4,623 2.53 377 3.91 581 0.25 25,821 Indicated: Hangar Flats 19,697 1.71 1,080 4.80 3,041 0.20 86,962 West End 39,411 1.25 1,586 1.43 1,806

  • Yellow Pine

38,598 1.99 2,469 2.31 2,863 0.10 81,406 Historic Tailings 2,583 1.19 99 2.95 245 0.17 9,648 Total M&I 104,912 1.66 5,610 2.53 8,536 0.09 203,838 Inferred: Hangar Flats 7,654 1.37 336 3.95 971 0.12 19,885 West End 11,566 1.27 472 1.20 446

  • Yellow Pine

3,814 1.18 145 0.72 88 0.00 0.76 Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563 Total Inferred 23,174 1.29 959 2.04 1,518 0.04 20,524

Notes:

(1) All Mineral Resources have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”). (2) Mineral Resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability, as required under NI43-101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a Mineral Resource.

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. These Mineral Resource estimates include inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and therefore numbers may not appear to add precisely.

(3) Open pit sulfide Mineral Resources are reported at a cutoff grade of 0.75 g/t Au and open pit oxide Mineral Resources are reported at a cutoff grade of 0.45 g/t Au.

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

2014 PFS MINERAL RESERVES

(in imperial units)

Deposit Tonnage Average Contained Grade Total Contained Metal Gold Antimony Silver Gold Antimony Silver Imperial Units (000s tons) (oz/ton) (%) (oz/ton) (000s oz) (000s lbs) (000s oz) Yellow Pine 43,985 0.057 0.098 0.090 2,521 86,376 3,973 Hangar Flats 15,430 0.045 0.132 0.086 690 40,757 1,327 West End 35,650 0.035 0.000 0.040 1,265

  • 1,410

Historic Tailings 3,001 0.034 0.165 0.084 102 9,903 252 Total Probable Mineral Reserve 98,066 0.047 0.070 0.071 4,579 137,037 6,962

Notes:

(1) All Mineral Reserves have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”). (2) Metal prices used for Mineral Reserves: $1350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb. (3) Block MUST be economic based on gold value only in order to be included as ore in Mineral Reserve. (4) Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.

*The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

› $294 million/year Years 1-4 › $254 million/year Years 1-8

$1.5 billion in cash flow (after tax)

(after tax)

Payback in 3.4 years

01 02

AFTER TAX CASH FLOW (PFS* base case)

At US$1,350/oz gold

  • $1,600
  • $1,200
  • $800
  • $400

$0 $400 $800 $1,200 $1,600

  • $600
  • $450
  • $300
  • $150

$0 $150 $300 $450 $600

  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

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

Cumulative After Tax Cash Flow ($ millions) After Tax Cash Flow ($ millions) Year of Operation

Undiscounted Cash Flow Undiscounted Cumulative Cash Flow

*The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42

CAPITAL & OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

December 2014 PFS*

Capital Cost Estimate* Operating Cost Estimate*

*The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

REGULATORY INFORMATION

Compliance with NI 43-101

04

NON-IFRS REPORTING MEASURES

"Cash Costs", “All-in Sustaining Costs” and “Total costs” are not Performance Measures reported in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). These p erformance measures are included because these statistics are key performance measures that management uses to monitor performance. Management uses these statistics to assess how the Project ranks against its peer projects and to assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the contemplated mining operations. These performance measures do not have a meaning within IFRS and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. These performance measur es should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with IFRS. 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 Stibnite Gold 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 titled “Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho” dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March 28, 2019 (available on SEDAR or at www.midasgoldcorp.com) 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. 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 considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated. Section 2.3 of NI 43-101 states that: Despite paragraph (1) (a), an issuer may disclose in writing the potential quantity and grade, expressed as ranges, of a target for further exploration if the disclosure (a) states with equal prominence that the potential quantity and grade is conceptual in nature, that there has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource; and (b) states the basis on which the disclosed potential quantity and grade has been determined. The mineral resources and mineral reserves at the Stibnite Gold Project are contained within areas that have seen historic disturbance resulting from prior mining activities. In order for Midas Gold to advance its interests at Stibnite, the Project will be subject to a number of federal, State and local laws and regulations and will require permits to conduct its

  • activities. However, Midas Gold is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal or other reasons that would prevent it from advancing the project.

The Technical Report was compiled by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. (“M3”) which was engaged by Midas Gold Corp.’s wholly owned subsidiary, Midas Gold Idaho, Inc. (“MGI”), to evaluate potential options for the possible redevelopment of the Stibnite Gold Project based on information available up to the effective date of the Technical Report. Givens Pursley LLP (land tenure), Kirkham Geosystems Ltd. (mineral resources), Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd. (metallurgy), Pieterse Consulting, Inc. (autoclave), Independent Mining Consultants

  • Inc. (mine plan and mineral reserves), Allen R. Anderson Metallurgical Engineer Inc. (recovery methods), HDR Engineering Inc. (access road), SPF Water Engineering, LLC (water rights)

and Tierra Group International Ltd. (tailings, water management infrastructure and closure) also contributed to the PFS. Additional details of responsibilities are provided in the Technical Report. The Technical Report supersedes and replaces the technical report entitled ‘Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Golden Meadows Project, Idaho’ prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. and dated September 21, 2012 (PEA) and that PEA should no longer be relied upon.

slide-44
SLIDE 44

44

THANK YOU

www.supportstibnite.com

MAX.TSX MDRPF.OTCQX

www.midasgoldcorp.com facebook.com/midasgoldidaho Twitter.com/midasidaho Tel: 778.724.4700 E-mail: info@midasgoldcorp.Com Suite 890 – 999 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC CANADA V6C 2W2