Stibnite Gold Project - s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...The presentation has been prepared by Midas Gold management and does not represent a recommendation to buy or sell these securities

Stibnite Gold ProjectIdaho, USA

MAX.TSXMDRPF.OTCQX

SEPTEMBER 2017

Forward Looking Statements

Statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are "forward-looking information" or "forward-looking statements" (collectively, "Forward-Looking Information") within themeaning 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, disclosureregarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action; and the plans for completion of the Offerings,expected use of proceeds 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", "occur" or "be achieved". Although Midas Gold has attempted to identifyimportant 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 factorsthat 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 andfuture 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,Midas Gold does not assume any obligation to release publicly any revisions to Forward-Looking Information contained in this news release to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof orto reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

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 bematerially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factors include, among others, theindustry-wide risks and project-specific risks identified in the 2014 prefeasibility study and summarized above; risks related to the availability of financing on commercially reasonable terms and theexpected use of proceeds; operations and contractual obligations; 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 phenomenaand other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under US federal and Idaho rules and regulations; impact of environmentalremediation 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 ofmineral title; community relations; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation‘s dependence on one mineral project; the nature ofmineral 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 obtainnecessary 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 inenvironmental 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; risksrelated 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. Althoughthe 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 Informationwill 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 toreflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

Cautionary 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 investment advisors priorto making any investment decisions.All references to “dollars” or “$” shall mean United States dollars unless otherwise specified. Exchange rates and share prices used, where appropriate, are based on the spot prices as of Feb. 19th, 2016.

2

Highlights: Midas Gold & the Stibnite Gold Project

(1, 2)

WORLD CLASSGOLD PROJECT

(1, 2)

• Low geopolitical risk › Idaho, USA – a stable mining jurisdiction

• Brownfields site › Restoration of extensive prior disturbance• Positive 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 › 8th largest gold reserve in USA• Size › 4 million oz gold produced over 12 year mine life• Superior grade › 1.6g/t gold; 4th highest grade open pit

deposit in USA• Scale › 388,000oz gold/year for first 4 years & 337,000oz

gold/year LOM• Modest capital intensity › US$242/oz life of mine production• Low all-in sustaining costs › $US526/oz for first 4 years (cash

cost + royalties + sustaining capital)• 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

STRENGTH & SUPPORT

• Community Support › Strong local and state support

• Financial Support › Paulson, Franco-Nevada and Teck

• Corporate Depth › Experienced management team and strong boards with local, state & federal connections

• Well Funded › ~US$31 million cash at June 30, 2017

(1) The Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”) is intended to be read as a whole and sectionsshould not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in thispresentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained inthe 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

3

24%

21%

12%3%

40%

Shareholders

Institutional High Net Worth Individuals

Teck and Vista Directors and Management

Retail and Other

• IPO in 2011 with sole focus on advancing the Stibnite Gold Project, Idaho, USA• ~US$142.7m spent on the Project since 2009

› ~102,000m of drilling by Midas Gold› ~136,400m of drilling pre-Midas Gold› Prefeasibility study complete, feasibility underway› 3+ years of environmental baseline data collected› Permitting for mine development underway

• 186 million shares issued• Major institutional shareholders include:

› Franklin› Gabelli› M&G

• Franco Nevada purchased a 1.7% NSR in 2013• Teck purchased 9.9% stake in 2013• Paulson backstopped C$55 million financing in March 2016• Experienced management team and strong boards with local connections

›Sun Valley›VanEck

› Teck Corp.› Vista Gold

Midas Gold4

Stibnite Gold Project

Low geopolitical risk in a high risk worldStibnite Gold ProjectMidas Gold Au-Sb

Thompson Creek MineCenterra Gold Inc.

Molybdenum

Phosphate DistrictAgrium, Monsanto, Simplot, Stonegate

Sunshine MineSunshine Silver Mines

Silver

Lucky Friday MineHecla Mining Company

Silver-Lead-Zinc

Idaho Cobalt ProjecteCobalt Solutions

Copper-Cobalt

Coeur d’Alene

Cascade

BOISE

IDAHO

McCall

(1) Fraser Institute Survey

A mining friendly State Well defined permitting process Strong community support Low geopolitical risk

Idaho: The Right Place

(1, 2)

#4 RankedMining Jurisdiction

in USA (1)

(1, 2)

Idaho is the 2nd

largest Phosphate mining district

in the USA


6

Indicated Inferred

2.8 Moz1.93 g/t Au

0.1% Sb

0.4 Moz1.31 g/t Au

Indicated Inferred

1.1 Moz1.60 g/t Au

0.1%Sb

0.4 Moz1.52 g/t Au

0.1% Sb

Indicated Inferred

0.3 Moz1.15 g/t Au

1.5 Moz1.30 g/t Au

Yellow Pine Hangar Flats West End

* See table and disclaimers at back of the presentation and Company news release dated September 10, 2014 and December 15, 2014 for full details on the resource and reserve estimates.

ProbableReserves:2.5 Moz

1.97 g/t Au0.1% Sb

Probable Reserves:0.7 Moz

1.53 g/t Au0.13% Sb

Probable Reserves:1.3 Moz

1.22 g/t Au

Plus reserves of 102,000 oz at a grade of 1.17 g/t Au & 0.16% Sb in historic tailings

Totals for all deposits: PROBABLE RESERVES 4.6 Moz Au + 137Mlbs Sb included in INDICATED 5.5Moz Au, 155Mlb Sb and INFERRED 1.1 Moz Au & 26Mlbs Sb RESOURCE

World Class Mineral Resources & Reserves*(September 10, 2014 / December 15, 2014; “M” = millions)

7

* 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.

In this presentation, “M” = million, “k” = thousands, all amounts in US$, “LOM “ = Life-of-mine

14.0

8.3

56.0

99.9

Years 1-4

LOM

Antimony Production (millions lbs)Average Annual Production Total Production

22.0%

19.3%

IRR

pre-tax

after-tax

$1,093M

$832M

NPV5% (US$)

pre-tax

after-tax

$483 $568

$1,350 Cash Costs vs. Gold Price (US$/oz) (2)

Years 1-4 LOM Gold Price

$970 $1,125

Capital Costs (US$ millions)

Initial LOM

388

337

1,551

4,040

Years 1-4

LOM

Gold Production (000s oz)Average Annual Production Total Production

Cash Costs

AISC$506 AISC

$616

= $242/oz produced

Positive Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS)*December 2014 (at US$1,350 gold)

8

Largest USGold Resources

M&I000s oz Gold

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

Newmont Nevada

Barric Cortez

Barrick Goldstrike

Stibnite Gold (Yrs 1-4)*

Round Mountain

Fort Knox

Stibnite Gold (Life-of-mine)*

Pogo

Cripple Creek

Leeville

Bingham Canyon

Turquoise Ridge

- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Donlin GoldHycroft

Newmont NevadaTurquoise Ridge JV

Barrick CortezLivengood

Barrick GoldstrikeCripple Creek & Victor

GoldrushCarlin Underground

ConverseBald MountainStibnite Gold*

MesquiteTwin Creeks

Spring ValleyFort Knox

Sleeper

0 10,000 20,000 30,000

Newmont NevadaBarrick Cortez

Barrick GoldstrikeHycroft

Turquoise Ridge JVPogo

Cripple Creek and VictorStibnite Gold*

MarigoldFort Knox

Bald MountainMesquite

Round MountainJerritt Canyon

Kensington

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Mineral RidgeCortez

Golden SunlightStibnite Gold*

Ruby HillNevada Operations

WharfCripple Creek and Victor

Buckskin RawhideBorealis

BriggsRound Mountain

Bald MountainMesquite

Florida CanyonMarigold

Fort KnoxHycroft

Source: USGS data for 2012 excluding mines/projects that are primarily copper or silver

4th largest years 1-4

6th largest LOM 8th largest

13th largest

4th highest grade

Barrick Cortez

* Based on the Stibnite Gold 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study

Largest USGold Mines

2012Production

000s oz Gold

Largest USGold Mine Reserves

000s oz Gold

Highest GradeUS Open PitGold Mines

g/t

One of the largest, best grade gold projectsin the USA

9

Antimony Uses (USGS)

Supply Risk - China dominates world antimony• No domestic U.S. antimony or tungsten mine production• U.S. is reliant on China for majority of its antimony & tungsten• Chinese supply is falling• Export restrictions from China since 2009

Potential for new U.S. legislation aimed at developing U.S. production of critical minerals

World Antimony Production 2016 (USGS)

Effectiveness of antimony flame retardant (left coverall)

Strategic By-Products:Potential by-product credits from antimony

Australia3% Bolivia

3%Burma

2%

China76%

Russia7%

Tajikistan6%

Turkey2%

Vietnam1%

Flame Retardants

60%

Batteries & Alloys20%

Other Uses20%

$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

Average Antimony Price/quarter (US$/lb)

10

Peer Comparisons

Stibnite Gold Project vs. comparable explorers/developers

15.5

10.9 10.79.5 8.9

6.2

2.41.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Pret

ium

MAG

Silv

er

Dalra

dian

Hart

e Go

ld

Pure

Gol

d

Sabi

na

Falc

o

Mid

as G

old

Atla

ntic

Gol

d

Belo

Sun

Libe

rty

Gold

Gold

Stan

dard

Vict

oria

Gol

d

Rye

Patc

h

Resource Grade (g/t AuEq)

Source: Macquarie Capital

open pitunderground404

335

236205 200 200 198 192

87 7550 47

Pret

ium

Mid

as G

old

Falc

o

Belo

Sun

Vict

oria

Gol

d

Sabi

na

Dalra

dian

MAG

Silv

er

Atla

ntic

Gol

d

Rye

Patc

h

Hart

e Go

ld

Pure

Gol

d

LOM Annual Production (000s oz AuEq)

12

Cortez

Canadian Malartic

Detour Lake Round Mountain

Musselwhite

Hemlo

Bald Mountain

Young-Davidson

Marigold

Casa Berardi

Kettle River-Buckhorn

Kensington

Mesquite

Goldex

Westwood

Golden Sunlight

Wharf

Black Fox

Seabee

Holt

STIBNITE

0

2

4

6

8

10

400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Gra

de (g

/t A

u)

Cash Cost (US$/oz Au)

Comparison of Stibnite gold project expectations (grade, cash cost and output) with selected large-scale gold mines

Source: SNL Financial and Haywood Securities

Higher Cash Costs

High

er G

rade

Stibnite Gold Project vs. other large-scale gold mines

bubble size = annual output oz/year

Black outline on bubble = underground

13

Stibnite Gold Projectvs. other open pit development projects

AlgoldBarsele

Cardinal

Gold Standard

Nighthawk

Almaden*

Liberty

MIDAS GOLD

Newcastle

Orla

Atlantic

Belo Sun

Gold Road

Lydian*

Trek

Victoria

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

M&

I+I R

esou

rce

Size

(000

s oz)

Grade (M&I+I)

Resource Stage PEA/PFS Stage FS/Constr Stage

bubble size = EV/oz Valuation (M&I+I)

* Gold EquivalentSource: ThomsonOne, Company reports, RBC Capital Markets

Higher Grade

Larg

er R

esou

rce

14

Algold

Barsele

Cardinal

Gold Standard

Nighthawk

Almaden*

Liberty

MIDAS GOLD

Newcastle

Orla

Atlantic

Belo Sun

Gold Road

Lydian*

Trek

Victoria

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

EV/o

z Val

uatio

n U

S$ (M

&I+

I)

M&I+I Resource Size (000s oz)* Gold EquivalentSource: ThomsonOne, Company reports, RBC Capital Markets

Resource Stage PEA/PFS Stage FS/Constr Stage

bubble size = Grade (M&I+I)

Stibnite Gold Project Valuationvs. other open pit development projects

Larger Resource

High

er V

alua

tion

15

Stibnite Gold Project Valuationvs. other open pit development projects

› Enterprise value of current and acquired open pit projects vs. grade

Source: ThomsonOne, Company reports, RBC Capital Markets * Au equivalent

IAG (Trelawney)

AR (Prodigy)

NGD (RR) EDV (Avnel)

OSK (Queenston)

PPP (Cerro)

AKG (PMI)

Rio Alto (Sulliden)

B2Gold (Papillon)

GG (Probe)

SMF (Orbis)TMM (Newstrike)

OGC (Romarco)

GG (Kaminak)

Fortuna (Goldrock)

TGZ (Gryphon)

Algold

Barsele

Cardinal

Gold Standard

Lumina

Nighthawk

Skeena

Almaden*

Liberty

MIDAS GOLD

Newcastle

Orecorp

Atlantic

Belo Sun

Gold Road

Lydian*

Trek

Victoria

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

EV/o

z (M

&I+

I)

Grade (g/t M&I+I)

Current peer average = $62/oz

Average takeover EV/oz since 2012 = $70/oz

FS/Construction stage

Previous acquisition multiples

PEA/PFS stageResource stage

16

Detour

Alacer

Asanko

Guyana

Roxgold

TMAC

Torex

Continental

Dalradian

Integra

Midas

Pretium

Sabina

AlmadenDacian

Goldquest

IDM

INV

Luna

Pure Gold

Atlantic

Belo SunVictoria

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Afte

r-ta

x IR

R in

cl. 4

0% ta

keov

er p

rem

ium

Annual Gold Production

Pre-production: 12%

Producing: 5%

- pre production asset- producing asset

Estimated IRRs at $1,300/oz gold for potential takeout candidates – including a 40% takeover premium to current market value

Higher Production

High

er R

etur

n

(000s oz)

Illustrates discount to NAV

On average, RBC calculates an IRR of 12% to buy and build a project vs. 5% to buy an existing single asset producer

Source: ThomsonOne, Company Reports, RBC Capital Markets estimates

Stibnite Gold ProjectProduction scale

- 2016 position

17

Value Opportunities

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

US$1,200/oz Au US$1,350/oz Au US$1,500/oz Au

Net

Ass

et V

alue

(US$

Mill

ions

)

NAV

PS (U

S$)

Net Asset Value NAVPS

Substantial NPV & Leverage To

Gold Price

NAV Sensitivities (US$)US$1,200/oz Au(1) US$1,350/oz Au(2) US$1,500/oz Au(3)

Project NPV5% $513M $832M $1,129M

Cash on Hand $42M $42M $42M

Net Asset Value $555M $874M $1,171M

NAVPS(4) $1.75 $2.75 $3.69

(1) PFS Case A: $1,200/oz Au, $20/oz Ag, $4.00/lb Sb, after-tax

(2) PFS Case B (Base Case): $1,350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb, after-tax

(3) PFS Case C: $1,500/oz Au, $25/oz Ag, $5.00/lb Sb, after-tax

(4) Assumes debentures converted to common shares

Source: Midas Gold December 2014 PFS

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

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

Proj

ect N

PV (U

S$ m

illio

ns)

Gold Price ($/oz)

5% After-Tax

0% After-Tax

0% Pre Tax

Enterprise Value~US $125m

Leverage to gold price19

• Re-rating opportunity as fully permitted projects attract higher valuation multiples• While some make it to production (e.g. Pretium, TMAC), others get acquired once de-

risking milestone is achieved (e.g. Romarco, Kaminak)• Standalone intermediate producers/developers are rare, occupying a unique sector niche

and valuation

Rainy/Romarco Comparison: Large scale deposits sometimes get acquired after permitting, feasibility & before production

Takeover Pricing Rainy River Romarco Kaminak

Date Acquired 31-May-13 30-Jul-15 12-May-16Acquirer New Gold OceanaGold GoldcorpTakeover Value (C$M) $385 $856 $520MPremium (%) 67% 72% 40%43-101 Reserves (Moz Au) 4.0 2.0 2.2Per Oz Reserves (C$/oz) $77 $293 $218Project Rainy River Haile CoffeeStage at Takeover Post BFS,

Adv. PermittingPost BFS, Permitted

Post BFS, Adv. Permitting

Project NPV5% (US$M)* $656 $329 $438Takeover P/NAV* 0.50x 1.22x 0.84xTakeover Consensus P/Target** 0.65x 0.84x 1.12x

*BFS Study, After-Tax NPV5%, US$1,250 Au**Analyst Consensus Source: Haywood Securities * Haywood Securities compilation of Company reported economic studies after-tax NAV5%

Project Development Stage

Pre-PermitRamp-Up / Commissioning

Re-Rating PotentialMultiple expansion as permitting advances

Post-Permit/Construction

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

0.00x

0.20x

0.40x

0.60x

0.80x

1.00x

1.20x

TMAC Pretium Lundin Gold Continental Victoria Sabina Belo Sun NewCastle Midas Gold

Econ

omic

Stu

dy P

roje

ct N

AV5%

-U

S$1,

250

Au (U

S$M

)

Pric

e to

NAV

(US$

1,25

0 Au

)

ADVANCED GOLD DEVELOPERSAmericas

Price to Proj NAV Project NAV5% (US$1,250 Au)*

opportunity

20

$1,482

$832

-$74-$387

-$120

-$63-$6

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

PEANPV

Change inOpex

Change inPayable Metal

Change inMetal Prices

Addition ofRoyalty

Change inCapex

PFSNPV

Proj

ect N

PV a

t 5%

Dis

coun

t Rat

e ($

mill

ions

)

Life-of-Mine After-tax NPV5% - Comparing PEA to PFS PEA to PFS changes: • Decrease in payable metal:

› Inferred resources excluded in PFS› Changes in mineral resource estimation

process excluded some historical data

• Decrease in metal prices• Increases to OPEX

› Finer grinding• Increased electricity costs & consumption,

grinding media consumption

› Unit mining costs• Lower cost Hangar Flats material eliminated

• More detailed haulage profiles

• Addition of 1.7% royaltyThe 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.

PEANPV5%

PFSNPV5%

60% of reduction

11% of reduction

Potential Upside – Focus on PEA vs. PFSPayable metals & OPEX opportunities

2012 2014

21

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.

* See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding Inferred Mineral Resources** See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding geologic exploration potential

Potential UpsideIn- & next-to-pit reserve additions

Insidethe PFS

Reserve Pits

• Converting some or all of 346k oz Au @ 1.1 g/t Au of inferred mineral resources* to mineral reserves & reducing strip ratio

• 50-100k oz Au in partially drilled waste dumps currently treated as waste rock**

• 50-100k oz Au + 30-50M lbs Sb through more detailed drilling of higher grade core of Yellow Pine, where historic data restricted or excluded**

Aroundthe PFS Reserve

Pits throughResource

Conversion

• 889k oz Au @ 1.7g/t Au in indicated mineral resources between reserve pit and resource pit

• 714k oz Au @ 1.5 g/t Au in inferred mineral resources* between reserve pit and resource pit

22

Inferred to Indicated – 2-3x modelled grade

Resource De-risking - Replacing historic data

Inferred to Indicated + Resource additions

MGI16-411: 35.2m @ 3.1g/t Au (incl. 18.3m @ 5.0 g/t Au)MGI16-412: 22.9m @ 4.7g/t Au & 0.15% Sb

MGI16-414: 200.3m @ 2.2g/t Au, 3.2g/t Ag & 0.13% Sb(incl. 6.1m @ 3.6 g/t Au & 1.75% Sb)

MGI-17-421: 217m @ 3.2g/t Au, 6.1g/t Ag & 0.3% Sb(incl. 21m @ 5.7g/t Au, 26.7g/t Ag & 1.3% Sb)

MGI-17-423: 193.6m @ 2.5 g/t Au, 6.3g/t Ag & 0.55% Sb(incl. 32.0m @ 3.0 g/t Au, 24 g/t Ag & 3.1% Sb)

MGI16-415: 42.7m @ 3.1g/t Au, 10.7g/t Ag & 0.49% SbMGI16-418: 44.6m @ 2.0g/t Au, 9.4 g/t Ag & 0.59% Sb

Current Drill ProgramHighlights (see news release dated March 30, 2017 for full details)

23

Existing Deposits:• Resource to reserve conversion• Resource/reserve expansion immediately adjacent to pits• In pit unclassified materials• Grade &/or oz increases in historic data areas

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 oz >30M oz#

of D

epos

itsContained oz of Gold


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

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

Potential UpsideResource & Reserves

24


Potential UpsideHigh-grade exploration targets

Exploration potential

around thePFS Pits

NE Yellow Pine, including intercepts of:

• 162ft @ 5.4g/t Au• 45ft @ 5.9g/t Au

Hangar Flats below pit, including intercepts of:

• 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

High gradeunderground

prospects

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, including intercepts of:

• 75ft @ 14.8g/t Au• 100ft @ 6.7g/t Au• 35ft @ 11.3g/t Au• 25ft @ 15.6g/t Au

25

Past


An economically feasible, socially & environmentally sound project…• >$1 billion to be invested in

Idaho• ~1,000 well-paid jobs • 20-year project, including

construction, operations and reclamation

…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

StibniteRestoring the site

27

Example:Fish passage blocked since

1938

Midas Gold would:

Restore fish passage

Stibnite’s LegacyBrownfields site & restoration opportunity

28

Permitting & Social License

29

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

andStibnite Joint Review Process

Federal Permits and AuthorizationsUSFS:• 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

State PermitsIDEQ:• 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

Local Permits• Planning and Zoning -

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

Final Plan of Restoration and Operations &

Reclamation Plan & Reclamation Bond

The Joint Review Process30

Publish Final ROD

Notice of Availability (NOA) for

Draft EIS In Federal Register

EIS Project Initiation &

Public Scoping

PrepareDraft EIS

Respond to Comments on Draft EIS & Prepare

Final EIS & Draft RODAncillary Permits

RODDependent

PermitsPublic

Objection Period & Objection Resolution

Draft EIS Comment

Period

NOA For Final EIS &

Draft ROD In Federal Register

Pre-work & Planning

Alternatives & Environmental

Analysis

Submittal of PRO

ProjectApproved

Administrative Approval

Engineering & Design

We are here

Sept 2016 Dec 2016 Q2 2017 Q2 2018

Q2-Q4 2018Q1 2019 Q4 2018

The Permitting ProcessNEPA

31

People

32

Don BaileyChair & Director

Peter Nixon Chair & Director

Ex-Goepel, director of Dundee Precious

Metals, ex-director of Miramar Mining

Victor FloresDirector

Stephen Quin Director / CEO

Marcelo KimDirector

Donald Young Director

Partner, Paulson & Co. Ex-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining &

Northern Orion

Partner, Paulson & Co Ex-KPMG, Placer Dome, director of Dundee Precious

Metals

Keith Allred Director

Michael BogertDirector

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

former regional admin. of the US EPA Region 10 office

Partner at Cicero Group, 2010 Democratic

candidate for Governor of Idaho

Ken Brunk Director

April WhitneyDirector

Scotty Davenport Director

Shauna ArnoldDirector

Served four terms on McCall City Council, two

as mayor. Resident of McCall, ID

Founding member of Valley County Economic

Development Council, business owner in Valley

County. Resident of McCall, ID

Ex-CEO Midway Gold, ex-Romarco, ex-Newmont,

experienced mine builder & operator

Bob BarnesDirector/COO

COO Midas Gold, Ex-VP Ops Capstone, ex-

Pan American, Goldcorp

Laurel SayerDirector / 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 GoldCorp. Board

Midas Gold Idaho, Inc. Board

(Idaho operating subsidiary)

Boards of DirectorsProven track record, local interests

Massage Therapist, serves on local boards for organizations focussed on

the arts and education. Resident of Cascade, ID.

Communications Director for Brundage Mountain

Resort. Resident of McCall, ID.

33

Stephen Quin President & CEO

Midas Gold Corp.

Bob Barnes Director & COOMidas Gold Idaho

Darren Morgans CFO

Anne Labelle VP Legal & Sustainability

John Meyer VP Development

Chris Dail Exploration Manager

Rocky Chase VP Environment

& Restoration

Liz MongerIR Manager

& Corp. Secretary

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

ex-EVP Miramar Mining

Ex-VP Ops Capstone Mining, ex-Pan

American, Goldcorp

Ex-Terrane, Placer Dome, MIM and PWC

Ex-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper,

Miramar Mining

Ex-Cominco, Asarco, Kennecott, Piedmont,

USFS

Ex-Barrick, Hecla, Stibnite district

experience

Ex-Rainy River and Rubicon Minerals

Ex-Kinross, Aurelian, Barrick, Syncrude

Laurel Sayer President & CEOMidas Gold Idaho

Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Land Trusts, ex-director of natural resource

issues & policy for Idaho congressional delegation

Kyle FendEnvironmental Superintendent

Mckinsey LyonDirector, Public AffairsFormer Partner Gallatin Public

Affairs, consultant for Monsanto and Agrium on NEPA permitting

Ex-Freeport-McMoRan, Cameco, North Wind

Alan HaslamVP PermittingFormer Director of Mining for Agrium, recently led NEPA

permitting of Rasmussen Valley Mine, Idaho

Experienced ManagementWe’ve done it before!

34

Path Forward

Use of March 2016 Financing ProceedsPermitting & feasibility

~20%• Baseline data

collection• Land title

~20% • Permitting• Regulatory

~30%• Technical studies• Feasibility• Exploration

~10% • Legal• Sustainability

~20% • Corporate• Working capital

C$55m

Multi-year Investment(all percentages are approximate)

Illustrative Timeline

2019

2018

2017

2016

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Regulatory CSR Development

Feasibility Study

Project optimization, drilling, site

characterization

Finalize PRO

Permitting, Joint

Review, EIS

Ongoing community & government

relations

36

Regulatory process underway› Environmental baseline data collected to support an EIS› Project extensively discussed with local communities and stakeholders› Plan of Restoration & Operations for mine development filed, declared complete› NEPA process (EIS) underway

Feasibility study underway› PFS and post-PFS optimization completed› Metallurgical optimization test work› Resource optimization drilling› Feasibility study commenced

Financing provides multi-year certainty› Can complete the process› Management team in place› Support of well-funded strategic investors

Path Forward37

Additional Information

Extensive PFS test program• 7 master composites• 114 variability compositesNet overall Gold Recoveries

Yellow Pine 90%West End 86%Hangar Flats 87%Historic Tailings 75%

Antimony RecoveriesYellow Pine 87%Hangar Flats 82%

Jaw Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill

Antimony Flotation

Gold Flotation

Pressure Oxidation

Gold Leach& Recovery

Antimony Concentrate

Gold Doré

Oxi

des

(~14

%)

High Sb Sulphides (~14%)

Tailings

Low

Sb

Sulp

hide

s(~

72%

)

Simplified Flow Sheet


Tailings

ProcessingRobust gold & antimony recovery

39

Classification Metric Tonnes(000s)

GoldGrade(g/t)

ContainedGold

(000s oz)

SilverGrade(g/t)

ContainedSilver

(000s oz)

Antimony Grade

(%)

ContainedAntimony(000s lbs)

Indicated:Hangar Flats 21,389 1.60 1,103 4.30 2,960 0.11 54,180West End 35,974 1.30 1,501 1.35 1,567 0.008 6,563Yellow Pine 44,559 1.93 2,762 2.89 4,133 0.09 84,777Historic Tailings 2,583 1.19 99 2.95 245 0.17 9,648

Total Indicated 104,506 1.63 5,464 2.65 8,904 0.07 155,169Inferred:Hangar Flats 7,451 1.52 363 4.61 1,105 0.11 18,727West End 8,546 1.15 317 0.68 187 0.006 1,083Yellow Pine 9,031 1.31 380 1.50 437 0.03 5,535Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563

Total Inferred 25,168 1.32 1,066 2.15 1,743 0.05 25,908Notes:(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 haveeconomic 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 the measured and indicated categoriesthrough further drilling, or into Mineral Reserves, once economic considerations are applied. 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.

Mineral Resources (in metric units, except oz)

40

Deposit TonnageAverage 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.


Mineral Resources (in imperial units)

41

-$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

Cum

ulat

ive

Afte

r Tax

Cas

h Fl

ow ($

mill

ions

)

Afte

r Tax

Cas

h Fl

ow ($

mill

ions

)

Year of Operation

Undiscounted Cash Flow

Undiscounted Cumulative Cash Flow

Key Points:• $1.5 billion in cash flow (after tax)

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

• Payback in 3.4 years (after tax)

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” atthe end of this presentation.

After Tax Cash Flow (base case)At US$1,350/oz gold

42

Changes:• Reductions in mining related costs

› Smaller Hangar Flats pit reduces waste rock and additional equipment requirements

› Leasing major mining equipment

• Contingency reduced› Refined project estimates

• Increases in process plant CAPEX› Related to design changes

• Increased onsite & offsite infrastructure› Power line and access road

• Increased closure costs› Improved quantification of requirements

$1,182

$31

$97$19

$1,125-$176 -$28

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

LOM PEACAPEX

Mining Processingand Utilities

Infrastructure Owner CostsMitigation

and Closure

Contigency LOM PFSCAPEX

Life

-of-M

ine

CAPE

X ($

mill

ions

)

Life-of-Mine CAPEX - Comparing PEA to PFS


PFS vs. PEA – Life-of-Mine Capital CostsLower mining capex more than offsets other changes

43

Contingency

$19.06$1.30

$1.91

$1.82 $0.94 $24.40- $0.63

$0

$3

$6

$9

$12

$15

$18

$21

$24

$27

PEA TotalCash Costs

By-ProductRevenue

Mining &Stockpiling

Processing General &Administration

Royalty PFS TotalCash Costs

Life

-of-M

ine

OPE

X ($

/t)

Changes:• Operating costs increased 28%

› Reduction in by-product credits› Leasing costs for mining equipment› More detailed mine planning› Finer grinding› Addition of 1.7% royalty› Reduced G&A

• Modest impact on NPV5%

Life-of-Mine OPEX - Comparing PEA to PFS


34% of increase

36% of increase

PFS vs. PEA – Life-of-Mine Operating CostsHigher unit mining costs and finer grinding are main sources of increased costs

44

• C$55.2 million investment backstopped by Paulson – March 2016

› Current shareholders participated for C$20.7 million

› Paulson took up balance (C$34.5 million)

• 0.05% coupon, senior unsecured convertible debenture

• 7-year term, redeemable after 4 years• Funds the permitting process and feasibility for

the Stibnite Gold Project• Funding certainty for 3+ year period• Adds cornerstone committed gold investor with

strong balance sheet

“We are excited to be investing in one of North America’s largest, highest quality gold development projects. With funding certainty, the team at Midas Gold will be able to continue to advance the Stibnite Gold Project. We look forward to working with Midas Gold to

see this project through the regulatory process, and into site restoration and development.”- Victor Flores, Partner, Paulson & Co.

Strategic investment in Midas Gold45

Regulatory Information

46

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 Pre-Feasibility Study Report (available on SEDAR or atwww.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 TechnicalInformation. 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 subjectto 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 mineralresource 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 mineralreserves. There is also no certainty that these Inferred mineral resources will be converted to the Measured and Indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economicconsiderations are applied.

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 furtherexploration 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 itsinterests 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 anyenvironmental, permitting, legal or other reasons that would prevent it from advancing the project.

The PFS was compiled by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. (“M3”) which was engaged by Midas Gold Corp.’s wholly owned subsidiary, Midas Gold, Inc. (“MGI”), to evaluate potential options for the possibleredevelopment of the Stibnite Gold Project based on information available up to the date of the PFS. 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 ofresponsibilities are provided in the technical report filed on SEDAR in December 2014. The PFS supersedes and replaces the technical report entitled ‘Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for theGolden Meadows Project, Idaho’ prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. and dated September 21, 2012 (PEA) and that PEA should no longer be relied upon.

"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 areincluded 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 andto 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 becomparable 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.

N O N - I F RS R E P O RT I N G M EA S U R ES

Compliance with NI 43-10147

http://www.midasgoldcorp.com/

For more information:Te l : 7 7 8 . 7 2 4 . 4 7 0 0F a x : 6 0 4 . 5 5 8 . 4 7 0 0E - m a i l : i n f o @ m i d a s g o l d c o r p . C o mS u i t e 8 9 0 – 9 9 9 W e s t H a s t i n g s S t r e e tV a n c o u v e r , B C C A N A D A V 6 C 2 W 2

w w w . m i d a s g o l d c o r p . c o m

48

Documents

Stibnite Gold Project - s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...The presentation has been prepared by Midas Gold management and does not represent a recommendation to buy or sell these securities