STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT - Seeking Alpha

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

October 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$38.9m

(June 30/20)

Sb

$

Stibnite Gold Project

5

Strong and supportive shareholder base

Shares Outstanding 474.7 million

Convertible Notes (non-Paulson) 43.5 million

Options 19.9 million

Warrants 2.0 million

Fully Diluted 540.1 million

ESTIMATED SHAREHOLDINGS

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

Issued Market Capitalization

(Based on share price of C$1.20)

C$570 million

Fully DilutedMarket Capitalization

(Based on share price of C$1.20)

C$648 million

ISSUED

FULLY DILUTED

D&O 1.7%

Issued & Outstanding*

Fully Diluted

D&O2.4%

Employee options1.63%

D&O 1.0%

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

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


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


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.

8

9

Robust gold & antimony recovery

PROCESSINGJaw 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 (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

operating 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

1010

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**

11

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)

12

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.


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)


13

POISED TO BE LARGEST INDEPENDENT1 GOLD MINE IN U.S. 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)*

14

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

15

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)

16

VALUE OPPORTUNITIES

17

(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)

18EXPLORATION UPSIDE1POTENTIAL TO EXPAND KNOWN DEPOSITS & DISCOVER NEW ONES

1 Some of the prospects are 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 Au25ft @ 15.6g/t Au

Existing Deposits:

• Northeast of Yellow Pine deposit

• Below Hangar Flats pit & Old DMEA workings area

• West End along strike and at depth

Priority High Grade Underground Prospects

• Garnet, Scout, Upper Midnight

Bulk Tonnage Targets

• Cinnamid-Ridgetop, Saddle-Fern, Rabbit

Undefined Airborne Targets

• Mule, Salt & Pepper, Blow-out

19

OPPORTUNITIESMineral resources2 not in PFS1,2 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 economicviability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, miningloss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resourcesthat are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations appliedto them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. It is reasonablyexpected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated.

WEST END

20

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

21

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

22

HISTORIC MINING DISTRICT

23

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

24

Brownfields site & restoration opportunity

STIBNITE’S LEGACY

EXAMPLE: FISH PASSAGE BLOCKED SINCE 1938

MIDAS GOLD WOULD RESTORE FISH PASSAGE

25

SOCIAL LICENSE

26

› 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

28

PERMITTING

29

STIBNITE

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 & 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 & 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), Stibnite Joint Review Process (Sept. 2017) and High Priority Project Status – Permitting Dashboard (Sept. 2020)

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

JOINT REVIEW PROCESS

PERMITTING DASHBOARD

Brings improved coordination, transparency and accountability to projects under the NEPA permitting process to the Stibnite Gold Project which has been declared a High Priority Infrastructure Project by the Council on Environmental Quality.

STIBNITE JOINT REVIEW PROCESS

PERM

ITTI

NG

DAS

HBO

ARD

30

305 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

31

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

32

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.

33

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 (in process)

• Feasibility Study to be published

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

• Final ROD

• Permits Issued

2017-2020

34

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 35% 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 Fully Diluted Mkt Cap based on October 20, 2020 share price of $1.20

35

Go to www.RestoreTheSite.com

36

ADDITIONAL INFO

37

EXPERIENCED MANAGEMENTWe’ve done it before!

President & CEO (MGC)Ex-COO Capstone Mining, ex-CEO

Sherwood Copper, ex-EVPMiramar Mining

Step

hen

Qui

n

Laur

el S

ayer

Mic

hael

Bog

ert

Darr

en M

orga

ns

Alan

Has

lam

Mck

inse

y Ly

on

John

Mey

er

Chris

Dai

l

Liz M

onge

r

Kyle

Fen

d

President & CEO (MGII)Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Lan

d Trusts, ex-director of naturalresource issues & policy for Idaho

congressional delegation

General CounselAttorney, formerly with Parsons, Behle

& Latimer, former counselor to US Interior Secretary, former regional

admin. of the US EPA Region 10 office

CFOEx-Terrane, Placer Dome, MIM and

PWC

VP PermittingFormer Director of Mining for Agrium,

recently led NEPA permitting of Rasmussen Valley Mine, Idaho

VP External Affairs Former Partner Gallatin Public Affairs, consultant for Monsanto and Agrium o

n NEPA permitting

VP DevelopmentEx-Kinross, Aurelian, Barrick, Syncrude

Exploration ManagerEx-Cominco, Asarco, Kennecott,

Piedmont, USFS

Manager IR & Corp. Sec.Ex-Rainy River and Rubicon Minerals

Operations ManagerEx-Freeport-McMoRan, Cameco,

North Wind

38

BOARDS OF DIRECTORSProven track record, local interests

Jaim

ie D

onov

an

Keith

Allr

ed

DirectorExec. Director – National

Institute for Civil Discourse, 2010

Democratic candidate for Governor of Idaho

DirectorFormer Head of

Growth & Evaluations, Barrick

Brad

Doo

res

DirectorAttorney, former VP &

Deputy General Counsel, Barrick

Jon

Goo

de

DirectorCPA, Manager Special

Projects – Itafos, ex-Agrium

Lead DirectorEx-Goepel, director of

Dundee Precious Metals, ex-director of

Miramar Mining

Pete

r Nix

on

Mar

celo

Kim

ChairmanPartner, Paulson & Co.

Chris

Pap

agia

nis

DirectorPartner, Paulson & Co.

Step

hen

Qui

n

Director & CEOEx-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining &

Northern Orion

MIDAS GOLD CORP.

Chair & DirectorServed four terms on McCall City Council,

two as mayor.

Resident of McCall, ID

Don

Baile

y

Bob

Barn

es

Shau

na A

rnol

d

DirectorMassage Therapist,

serves on local boards for organizations

focussed on the artsand education.

Resident of Cascade, ID

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

ex-Pan American, Goldcorp

Scot

ty D

aven

port

DirectorFounding member of

Valley County Economic

Development Council, business owner in

Valley County.

Resident of McCall, IDAn

ne L

abel

le

DirectorEx-VP Legal &

Sustainability, Midas Gold, Ex- Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar

Mining

April

Whi

tney

DirectorCommunications

Director for Brundage Mountain Resort.

Resident of McCall, ID.

Laur

el S

ayer

Director & CEOFormer 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)

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 86,962West 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 81,406Historic 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 19,885West End 11,566 1.27 472 1.20 446 - -Yellow Pine 3,814 1.18 145 0.72 88 0.00 0.76Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563

Total Inferred 23,174 1.29 959 2.04 1,518 0.04 20,524Notes:(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 economicconsiderations 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 toreflect 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.

40

2014 PFS MINERAL RESERVES(in imperial units)

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.

*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.

41

CAPITAL & OPERATING COST ESTIMATESDecember 2014 PFS*

Capital Cost Estimate*

Operating Cost Estimate*


42

› $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

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


4343

-

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)

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)

North American Developers - Life-of-Mine All-in Costs

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

Current Gold Price: ~US$1,750/oz

Midas (PFS)

HIGH PRODUCTION AT COMPETITIVE AISC

SIZE + MARGIN

44

SIGNIFICANT UPSIDE WITH HIGHER GOLD PRICES

2 Midas Gold Market Cap as of October 14, 2020

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.

PFS Net Present Value1 ($ m)

MIDAS GOLD TRADES AT DISCOUNT TO PROJECT NET ASSET VALUE1

Gol

d Pr

ice

(US$

/oz)

$513

$832

$1,129

$1,414

$494

$1,041

$1,499

$1,929

$2,344

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

MAX Mkt Cap

$1,200

$1,350

$1,500

$1,650

NPV at 0% NPV at 5%

Current MAX Mkt Cap2 Only 35% of NPV1 (5%) at $1,650/oz Gold Price

45

Midas Gold*Alamos

Roxgold

PretiumCoeur

Argonaut

Teranga

Eldorado

Regis

McEwen

Equinox

HeclaPerseus

Torex

Dundee

Centamin

Galiano

St. Barbara

Silver Lake

Calibre100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$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)

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 conversion of Paulson Convertible Notes (as announced on August25, 2020)Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents (October 2020).

Midas Gold vs. Gold Producer LandscapeFILLING THE VOID

4646

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

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 Oceanagold, C$856M Acquired by Goldcorp,

C$520M

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$2.3BAcquired by Goldcorp,

C$3.4B

Acquired by Yamana, C$414M

DevelopersM&A

46

Commercial prod. inQ2 2020 - 220kozMkt Cap: C$800M

Yukon

Joint Ventures

+ ++

+

Acquired by OsiskoGold Royalties,

C$338M

Acquired by Zijin, C$1.4B

Future production 350kozMkt Cap: C$2,152M

Ecuador

Pending acquisition by Shandong C$328M

Acquired by Goldcorp, C$526M

Pending acquisition by Zijin, C$290m

Blackwater Project acquired by Artemis

C$210m

2019 Guidance: 430kozMkt Cap: C$1,850M

Mexico

Acquired by Eldorado, C$590M

Pending acquisition by Shandong C$210M

47

SUSTAINABILITY 2019Living our values, every day.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.

TRANSPARENCY. ACCOUNTABILITY. SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE.

1,820 $228KGIVINGTREES PLANTED

In 2019, we continued supporting programs that matter in the community.

30 TOURSGetting the public to site is a great way to share our vision to Restore the Site. In 2019 we took over 412

people to site.

717 HOURSCLASSROOM TIME

Spending time in the classroom is an investment in our future. Our team teaches STEM education around the region.

In total, we have planted 57,616 trees to stabilize the environment at Stibnite.

48

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTAugust 14, 2020

49

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)

50

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

51

PERMITTING – NEXT STEPS

Publish Final ROD2021

NOA forDEIS In Federal

Register

DEIS CommentPeriod

EIS Project Initiation & Public

ScopingQ2/Q3 2017

PrepareDraft EIS

RODDependent

Permits

Engineering & Design

Ancillary Permits (CN, Dam Safety, Water Rights, NPDES, 404, Air PTC, WWTP, ROW, etc.)

NOA for FEIS & Draft ROD in Federal Register

Public Objection Period,Objection Resolution

Pre-work & Planning

Q1/Q2 2017

Alternatives & Environmental

Analysis

Submittal of PRO9/2016

ProjectApproved

Construction

Administrative Approval12/2016

Respond to Comments on DEIS & Prepare

Final EIS & Draft ROD

52

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.

http://www.midasgoldcorp.com/

53

THANK YOU

www.supportstibnite.comMAX.TSX

MDRPF.OTCQX

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

Tel: 778.724.4700E-mail: [email protected]

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