11

STIBNITE GOLD

Idaho, USA MAX.TSXMDRPF.OTCQX

Restoring and Redeveloping the Largest, Highest Grade and

Lowest Cost Independent Gold Project in the U.S. Lower 48

PROJECT

August 20, 2020

2

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

04Cautionary NoteThe 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 investmentadvisors 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-LookingInformation") within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-Looking Informationincludes, but is not limited to, disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and coursesof 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 MidasGold 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 notplace 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 theCorporation to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factorsinclude, among others, the industry-wide risks and project-specific risks identified in the technical report titled "Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, ValleyCounty, Idaho" dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March 28, 2019 (the "PFS") and summarized above; risks related to the availability of financing on commerciallyreasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds of such financing(s); operations and contractual obligations; changes in estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources; futureprices of metals; availability of third party contractors; availability of equipment; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; accidents, effects of weather and other naturalphenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under US federal and Idaho rules andregulations; impact of environmental remediation requirements and the terms of existing and potential consent decrees on the Corporation‘s planned exploration and developmentactivities on the Stibnite Gold Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation‘s dependence on one mineral project; thenature of mineral exploration and mining and the uncertain commercial viability of certain mineral deposits; the Corporation‘s lack of operating revenues; risks related to mineralproperties 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 standardspursuant 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 processinvolving 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 thereview 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. governmentshutdowns); 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 dependenceon 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 theCorporation 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 inForward-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 thatForward-Looking Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readersshould 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 toForward-Looking Information contained in this presentation to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

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.

MIDAS GOLD: RESPONSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

4

HIG

HLI

GH

TS Low geopolitical risk › Idaho, USA

PFS Complete› 7th largestgold reserve in USA› 4th highest grade open pit in USA

Brownfieldssite

Low all-in sustaining costs

Strategic by-product› Antimony

Strong & supportiveinvestor base

Explorationpotential

Well-funded› US$45.4m

(Mar.31/20)

Sb

$

Stibnite Gold Project

5

Strong and supportive shareholder base

Shares Outstanding (at Aug.14/20) 273.2 million

Convertible Notes* 243.2 million

Subtotal 516.4 million

Options 21.1 million

Warrants 2.0 million

Fully Diluted 539.5 million

ESTIMATED SHAREHOLDINGS

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

* Convertible Notes issued at 0.05% interest; 140.9 million convertible at $0.3541 (March 2016 financing); 102.3 million convertible at $0.4655 (March 2020 financing); 7-year term, Company can redeem after four years if share price is double the conversion price.

Issued Market Capitalization

(Based on share price of C$1.90)

C$519 million

Issued + Conv. NotesMarket Capitalization

(Based on share price of C$1.90)

C$981 million

ISSUED

FULLY DILUTED

Issued & Outstanding

Fully Diluted

D&O 1.0%

D&O 1.7%

6

STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT

7

Idaho: the right place

* Fraser institute Survey 2019

Stibnite Gold ProjectMidas Gold Au-Sb

Thompson Creek MineCenterra Gold Inc.

Phosphate DistrictItafos, Simplot, Bayer

Sunshine MineSunshine Silver Mines

Lucky Friday MineHecla Mining Company

Idaho Cobalt ProjectJervois

Coeur d’Alene

Cascade

BOISE

IDAHO

McCall

Beartrack MineRevival Gold

DeLamar ProjectIntegra Resources

NEVADA

UTAH

Goldstrike MineBarrick/Newmont

Twin CreeksBarrick/Newmont

Galena ComplexAmericas Silver

Turquoise RidgeBarrick/Newmont

CortezBarrick/Newmont

Iron CreekFirst Cobalt

New Jersey MiningGolden Chest

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

88

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(oz)

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 1-4LOMGold Price

AISC$506

AISC$616

IRR

22.0%

19.3%

pre-tax

after-tax**

NPV5% (US$)

$1,093M

$832M

pre-tax

after-tax**

9

STRATEGIC ANTIMONY BY-PRODUCT SUPPORTS PERMITTING

• US declared antimony a Critical Mineral

• US Military & Energy sectors largest end users

• Currently no domestic antimony production in US

• US heavily reliant on China for antimony

• China has placed export restrictions on antimony

• Potential exists for new US legislation aimed at encouraging domestic production of Critical Minerals, including antimony

• Midas Gold would produce antimony as a by-product of its US gold production1

• Estimated production* would equal ~30% of US annual demand

Other countries that produce less than 2% of global supply: Turkey, Australia, Burma, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Vietnam

39%

21%

40%

China63%

Russia19%

Tajikistan10%

World Antimony Production 2019 (USGS)

1 Based on the 2014 PFS, which 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.

Non-metal products (glass, rubber)

21%

Flame retardants40%

Metal Products (batteries, explosives, ammunition, nuclear

sheilding etc.)39%

Antimony Uses 2019 (USGS)

10

ONE OF THE LARGEST, BEST GRADE GOLD PROJECTSin the U.S. Lower 48

1.3

2.7

3.0

3.1

3.6

4.6

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Bald Mountain

Round Mountain

Haile

Marigold

Castle Mountain

Stibnite (Midas Gold)*

LARGEST INDEPENDENT1,2 RESERVES3

IN U.S. LOWER 48(2019 Year-End Proven & Probable, M Oz Gold)

Source: S&P Global – Market Intelligence 1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or Newmont 2 Excludes Hycroft due to technical uncertainty regarding recoverability of reserves

* Based on the 2014 PFS which 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.

Stibnite (Midas Gold)*

0.5 0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8

0.8 1.0 1.0

1.5 1.7

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

MarigoldCastle Mountain

Bald MountainSoledad Mountain

Round MountainWharf

Relief CanyonMount Hamilton

Gold BarGoldfield

MidasHaile

HIGHEST GRADE INDEPENDENT1 OPEN PITSIN U.S. LOWER 48

(2019 Year-End Proven & Probable Grade, g/t Gold)

Stibnite (Midas Gold)*

11

POISED TO BE LARGEST INDEPENDENT1 PRODUCING MINE IN LOWER 48LARGEST INDEPENDENT1 GOLD MINES IN U.S. LOWER 48

(2019 Production, 000s oz Gold)

1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or NewmontSource: S&P Global – Market Intelligence

* Based on the 2014 PFS which 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.

146

188

220

337

362

388

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Haile

Bald Mountain

Marigold

Midas (LoM)*

Round Mountain

Midas (Yrs 1-4)*

Stibnite LOM (Midas Gold)*

Stibnite Years 1-4 (Midas Gold)*

12

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 $483Royalties, Refining & Transport $29 $31

Total Cash Costs $597 $513Sustaining Capital, Salvage & Property Tax $18 $12

All-In-Sustaining Costs $616 $526Reclamation and Closure $14 -

Initial Capital $242 -

All-In Costs $872 -

2020 Gold AISC Cost Curve

LOW ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTLowest Quartile Project, based on 2014 PFS*

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2020 All-In Sustaining Costs*Based on S&P Global Market Intelligence’s estimates and forecasts. Mine economic forecasts cover 66.1% of 2020 global recovered gold production

* 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.

All-I

n Su

stai

ning

Cos

t (U

S$/o

z)

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Stibnite ProjectYrs 1-4 LoM

13

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 towardexploration 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 ASSET

Brazil 2

Dominican 1

Mexico 2

Peru 2Suriname 2

Burkina Faso 1DRC 1

Egypt 1

Ghana 3

Guinea 1Mali 1

South Africa 2Tanzania 2

Argentina 3

Indonesia 1

Papua New Guinea 2

Kyrgyzstan 1

Russia 3

Australia 8

Canada 5

USA 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90N

umbe

r of +

300k

ozpa

min

es(b

ubbl

e siz

e =

com

bine

d pr

oduc

tion)

Fraser Institute Index (Overall Investment Attractiveness)

Size + Grade + Tier 1 Mining

Jurisdiction

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

14

VALUE OPPORTUNITIES

1515

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

Skeena(PEA)

Sabina(FS)

FirstMining(PEA)

Integra(PEA)

Almaden(FS)

Marathon(PFS)

Corvus(PEA)

Ascot (FS) Midas(PFS)

Osisko(PEA)

GoldStandard

(PFS)

Life

-of-M

ine

Prod

uctio

n (o

z Au)

Life

-of-M

ine

All-i

n Co

st (U

S$/o

z)

N. American Developers - Life-of-Mine All-in Sustaining Costs & Production

LoM Cash Cost/oz Initial Capex/oz Sustaining Capex/oz LoM Production (oz)

Gold Price: ~US$1,985/oz

Midas (PFS)

HIGH PRODUCTION AT COMPETITIVE AISC

SIZE + MARGIN

16

(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) US$1,650/oz Au(4)

Project NPV @ 5% discount(after tax) $513M $832M $1,129M $1,414M

(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

* 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.

Substantial NPV & Leverage To

Gold Price

(3) PFS Case C: $1,500/oz Au, $25/oz Ag, $5.00/lb Sb(4) PFS Case C: $1,650/oz Au, $27.50/oz Ag, $5.50/lb Sb

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650

NPV (US$ millions)

5% After-Tax 0% After-Tax 0% Pre-Tax

Gold Price ($/oz)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650

NPV (US$ millions)

Gold Price (US$/oz)

14.4%

19.3%

23.4%

27.0%

$1,200

$1,350

$1,500

$1,650

IRR

Gold

Pric

e (U

S$/o

z)

17

LIFE CYCLE OF A JUNIOR MINERTypical value from discovery through production

TIME

VALU

E

EXPLORATION DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTION

Discovery

Speculation

Speculators leave

Permitting &Technical Studies

Project Financing& Construction

Production Re-Rating

HIGH RISK | HIGH POTENTIAL MEDIUM RISK | LOW POTENTIAL MEDIUM RISK | HIGH POTENTIAL

18

The Stibnite Gold Project is one of the only large-scale gold projects in advanced development.

Midas Gold is uniquely positioned to become the only US-based, >300k oz/yr stand alone producer.

The Midas Gold Advantage

*Midas Gold production assuming PFS LoM average annual and Convertible Notes ConvertedSource: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents (August 2020).

Midas Gold vs. Gold Producer LandscapeFILLING THE VOID

Midas Gold*

Alamos

Roxgold

PretiumCoeur

Saracen

Argonaut

Teranga

Eldorado

Regis

McEwen

OceanaGold

Equinox

HeclaPerseus

Torex

Dundee

Centamin

Galiano

St. Barbara

Silver Lake

Calibre100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500

2020

Au

Prod

uctio

n (0

00oz

Au

Eq)

Mkt Cap (US$M)

19

Invest $1 billion in IdahoProvide well-paid jobs to Idahoans Grow economic opportunity withan estimated $43 million in directannual payroll during operations & $86 million in local and state taxes*

ECONOMY

INDUSTRY CAN REPAIR THE ENVIRONMENT

+Reprocess historical tailingsRestore fish passageRepair historically impacted waterwaysRemediate areas contributing to waterdegradationRehabilitate habitat and naturalvegetationReuse materials on site

ENVIRONMENT

*Based on 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study

20

HISTORIC MINING DISTRICT

21

STIBNITE:RESTORING THE SITEAn 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,

operations and reclamation

22

Brownfields site & restoration opportunity

STIBNITE’S LEGACY

EXAMPLE: FISH PASSAGE BLOCKED SINCE 1938

MIDAS GOLD WOULD RESTORE FISH PASSAGE

23

PERMITTING

24

STIBNITEJOINT REVIEW PROCESSThe 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 & StreamsEPA: • NPDES - Water discharges• SWPPP - StormwaterUSFWS/NOAA: Section 7 ESA -Endangered Species ConsultationFCC: Radio CommunicationsBATFE: 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 WaterIDWR:• Water Rights• Stream Channel Alteration• Dam Safety (Tailings Dam)SHPO: Cultural ClearanceIDL: 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) andStibnite Joint Review Process (Sept. 2017)

Final Plan of Restoration and Operations, Reclamation Plan& Reclamation Bond

25

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTAugust 14, 2020

26

Being stewards of the environment is good business

Minimize our impact

Restore the site

Improve water quality

Reconnect fish to spawning grounds

Safety first

Economic opportunity

OUR APPROACHGOING IN

September 2016Plan of

Restoration and Operations

(PRO)

August 2020Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)

OUR GOALSACHIEVED

Natural resource restoration via private investment

Cleans up legacy impacts Repairs damage from a

century of mining Restores salmon migration into

upper EFSFSR Safety prioritized Over 1,000 well-paid jobs for

Idahoans Local contracting, supplies and

services emphasized

PLAN OF RESTORATION & OPERATIONS (PRO)

27

275 Years of Study PLAN OF RESTORATION AND OPERATIONS

11 Local, State and Federal

agencies

4+ YEARS+

80 reports with 27,000 pages of scientific data and analysis

+150 additional requests for

information+

841 Community Meetings

Modified PLAN OF RESTORATION

AND OPERATIONS (Mod PRO)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)

NEPA: STUDY, REFINEMENT, REVIEW Making the Best Project for Idaho

28

Mine Feature Alternative 1 (PRO) ALTERNATIVE 2 (Mod-PRO) ALTERNATIVE 3 - EFSFSR TSF ALTERNATIVE 4: YP Route Alt 5: No Action GM stockpiles Per PRO No change Changes related to TSF relocations No change

Mining Three pits (YPP, WEP, HFP) No change No change No change

Legacy tailings Process legacy tailings No change No processing of legacy tailings No change

DRSFs Four DRSFs No WE DRSF, partial HFP backfill HF DRSF to EFSFSR TSF HFP partial backfill, reduced DRSF

Ore processing Per PRO On site lime generation No change No change

TSF PRO TSF No change EFSFSR TSF No change

Exploration Per PRO No change No change No change

Infrastructure Per PRO No change Relocation housing, roads No change

SW Mgmt Per PRO Mitigation measures Changes assoc. w/EFSFSR TSF Interim Meadow Ck. retained

GW Mgmt Dewatering per PRO No change No change No change

Water use Per PRO No change No change No change

Waste treatment Per PRO No change Facility relocate per EFSFSR TSF No change

Borrow sources Onsite/Burntlog borrow sites Reduced to 8 from 17 No SODA processing for borrow No change

Mine access Burntlog Route Burntlog Route with 8A reroute Burntlog w/Blowout Ck. reroute Yellow Pine Access Route

Public access Per PRO Through-site non-winter access Burntlog to Meadow Ck. access Through-site non-winter access

Powerlines Per PRO Minor reroutes Mods per EFSFSR TSF relocations No change

Comm towers Per PRO No change No change Helicopter installs

Offsite logistics Per PRO No change No change No change

Offsite maint Landmark Move to Burntlog borrow site No change W of Landmark

DEIS - FIVE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

29

MG Modified Proposed Action

Modifications to the PRO to address concerns that have surfaced through continued project analysis.

1

2

3

4

7

81

65

ALTERNATIVE 2Modified PRO

Mod-PRO submitted May 20191. DRSFs – reduce footprint, eliminate, backfill pits2. On-site lime generation – less traffic3. TSF – diversions, liner design4. Surface water management5. Offsite maintenance facility6. Mine access – mod to Burntlog (8a)7. Public access – through site access8. Powerline – route modifications

30

DEIS: WHAT IT SAYS1

2. Removing legacy materials will improve water quality Removing legacy materials and managing water provides long-term reduction in metal loading in ground and surface water Removing legacy tailings and waste lowers concentrations of antimony and arsenic in the EFSFSR Removing legacy tailings and waste improves water quality in Meadow Creek valley

3. Mitigation and Restoration will address impacts Proposed mitigation will provide 1:1 replacement of wetlands acres Mitigation plan offers a net gain of 346.5 wetland functional units represents a 40% increase Restoration plans will provide a net gain of 21,941 stream functional units, a 23% increase

4. Concurrent Restoration reduces risks Concurrent mitigation and restoration reduce the uncertainty in the duration of wetland and riparian resource losses

1. Removing historical barriers to fish migration will assist the population Long-term access to historically blocked critical habitat improves productivity Free movement and access to habitat can improve genetic diversity Increased access to feeding and refuge areas in critical habitat can improve overall productivity

1 Quotes from Stibnite Gold Project Deaft EIS published by USFS Aug.14/20 and can be found in Chapter 4, Appendix D and CMP.

31

Mining by previous operators:

1 million oz gold88 million lbs antimony1 million lbs tungsten

100+ years

Exploration, resource/reserve development &

environmental studies

7 years

PROJECT TIMELINE*

Permitting, feasibility & social license

Permitting

~5 years

Operations, continued restoration and concurrent

reclamation388,000 oz Au/year (yrs 1-4)337,000 oz Au/year (LOM)

12 + years

Restoration & construction

~3 years

Reclamationand closure

*indicative permitting schedule based on latest published government schedule

Permitting milestones

2016 2020 2021• PRO submitted to

regulators

• First public comment period (public scoping)

• EIS project initiation

• ongoing environmental studies

• ongoing community & government relations

• feasibility study work

• Draft EIS published – August 14, 2020

• Public comment period on draft EIS

• Feasibility Study to be published

• Final EIS & Draft Record of Decision (“ROD”)

• Final ROD

2017-2020

32

MIDAS GOLD: A UNIQUE AMERICAN GOLD PLAY

• Largest Undeveloped Independent1 Gold Reserve2 in the Lower 48 of U.S.

• Slated to Become Largest Independently-Owned Gold Producer2 in the Lower 48

• Highest Grade2 Undeveloped Open Pit Deposit in Lower 48

• Lowest Quartile Projected Costs2

• Current Market Cap3 57% of Project NPV(5%) at $1,650/oz Gold Price2

• Receipt of Permits expected to Unlock material Shareholder Value

• Environmental Restoration funded through Mine Redevelopment

1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or Newmont 2

2 Based on the 2014 PFS which 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. Comparison excludes Hycroft due to technical uncertainty regarding recoverability of reserves3 Based on August 17, 2020 share princes; Market capitalizations based on fully diluted share count as of the latest filing date (including convertible notes as converted into shares).

33

Go to www.RestoreTheSite.com

34

SOCIAL LICENSE

35

› 71 lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors› Included leadership in the Republican and

Democratic caucuses in both houses› Vote: 104 out of 105 legislators in favour

Idaho’s House of Representatives and Senate passed, withoverwhelming support, a joint memorial asking thePresident of the United States, Idaho’s congressionaldelegation, the Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary ofthe Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to take thesteps necessary to approve the Stibnite Gold Project in atimely and cost-effective manner.

GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC SUPPORTJoint 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 (Idaho State Senator)

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

Favor or OpposeRestarting Operations at the Stibnite Mining District?

74.7%20.7%

Favor

Oppose

www.stibniteadvisorycouncil.com

The Stibnite Advisory Council brings together communities across central Idaho to discuss the challenges and

opportunities presented by the Stibnite Gold Project.

Village of Yellow Pine + Cascade + Donnelly + New Meadows + Riggins + Council + Adams County + Idaho County

37

REGULATORY INFORMATIONCompliance with NI 43-101

04NON-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 performance measures are included because these statistics are key performance measures that management uses to monitor performance. Management uses these statistics toassess how the Project ranks against its peer projects and to assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the contemplated mining operations. These performance measuresdo not have a meaning within IFRS and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. These performance measures 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 itssubsidiaries, “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., QualifiedPerson 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, theyshould read the technical report titled “Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho” dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March28, 2019 (available on SEDAR or at www.midasgoldcorp.com) in its entirety (the “Technical Report”), including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to theinformation 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 beread 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 lossand dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied tothem 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 itis 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 orderfor 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 itsactivities. 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. GivensPursley LLP (land tenure), Kirkham Geosystems Ltd. (mineral resources), Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd. (metallurgy), Pieterse Consulting, Inc. (autoclave), Independent Mining ConsultantsInc. (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 theTechnical 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.

38

THANK YOU

www.supportstibnite.comMAX.TSX

MDRPF.OTCQX

www.midasgoldcorp.comfacebook.com/midasgoldidahoTwitter.com/midasidaho

Tel: 778.724.4700E-mail: info@midasgoldcorp.Com

Suite 890 – 999 West Hastings StreetVancouver, BC CANADA V6C 2W2