STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT · 4/20/2020 · • Corporate Depth › Experienced management amte and strong boards with local, state & federal experience • Funding › ~US$17.5 million

11

STIBNITE GOLD

Idaho, USA MAX.TSXMDRPF.OTCQX

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

and develop a modern mining industry.”

PROJECT

April 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.

4

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

HIGHLIGHTS(1)(2)

Midas Gold & the Stibnite Gold Project

• ~US$210m spent on the Project since IPO in 2011

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

• Brownfields site › Restoration of extensive prior disturbance

• Positive 2014 Pre‐Feasibility Study › US$832 million NPV & 19.3% IRR (after tax at 5% discount rate) at $1,350/oz gold

• Multi‐million ounce deposit › 7th largest gold reserve in USA*

• Size › 4 million oz gold produced over 12 year mine life

• Superior grade › 1.7g/t gold; 4th highest grade open pit deposit in USA*

• Scale › 388,000oz gold/year (yrs 1‐4) & 337,000oz gold/year (LOM)

• Modest capital intensity › US$242/oz life of mine production

• Low all‐in sustaining costs › US$526/oz for first 4 years (cash cost + royalties + sustaining capital), US$616/oz LOM

• Strong after‐tax cash flow › US$294 million/year (Years 1‐4) & US$254 million/year (Years 1‐8)

• Strategic by‐products › Antimony + silver

• Exploration potential › All deposits open to expansion and multiple exploration prospects already drilled

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

boards with local, state & federal experience• Funding › ~US$17.5 million cash at December 31, 2019

> additional US$35 million raised in March 2020

(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 containedin the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.

(2) See non‐IFRS measures at conclusion

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

* S&P Global

5

Strong and supportive shareholder base• Major shareholders include: Barrick, M&G, Sun Valley, Franklin, VanEck, Teck

Corp., Gabelli, Oppenheimer• 2013: Franco Nevada purchased a 1.7% NSR for US$15m • 2016 & 2019: Paulson invested US$25 million and US$5.8 million, respectively• 2018 & 2019: Barrick invested US$38 million and US$4.4 million, respectively• 2020: Paulson invested US$35 million

Shares Outstanding (at Mar. 31/20) 271.5 million

Convertible Notes* 243.2 million

Subtotal 514.7 million

Options 23.0 million

Warrants 2.0 million

Fully Diluted 539.7 million

Haywood Securities Geordie Mark 604.697.6112

PI Financial Chris Thompson 604.718.7544

Paradigm Don Blyth 416.361.9892

ANALYST COVERAGE

23%

20%

4%

15%

8%1%

29%

Institutional

Barrick

Paulson

High Net Worth Individuals

Teck & Vista

Directors and Management

Retail and Other

13%

43%11%

8%

5%

2%18%

Institutional

Paulson

Barrick

High Net Worth Individuals

Teck & Vista

Directors & Management

Retail & Other

Franco Nevada (warrants)

ESTIMATED SHAREHOLDINGS

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

ISSUED

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

Issued Market Capitalization (Based on share price of C$0.46)

C$125 million

6

STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT

7

Idaho: the right place

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

• Barrick, Kinross, Yamana and Agnico Eagle

* Fraser institute Survey 2019

Stibnite Gold ProjectMidas Gold Au‐Sb

Thompson Creek MineCenterra Gold Inc.

Phosphate DistrictItafos, Simplot, Stonegate

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

88

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

388,000

337,000

1,551,000

4,040,000

Years 1‐4

LOM

Payable Gold ProductionAverage 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%22.0%

19.3%19.3%

pre‐tax

after‐tax**

NPV5% (US$)

$1,093M$1,093M

$832M$832M

pre‐tax

after‐tax**

9

ONE OF THE LARGEST, BEST GRADE GOLD PROJECTSin the USA

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

PogoBingham Canyon

MarigoldFort Knox

Bald MountainStibnite Gold (LoM)*

Turquoise RidgeCripple Creek & Victor

Round MountainStibnite Gold (Yrs 1‐4)*

Newmont NevadaBarrick Nevada

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Castle MountainCripple Creek and Victor

Bald MountainRound Mountain

MarigoldFort Knox

Stibnite GoldConverse

Turquoise RidgeGoldrushLivengood

HycroftBarrick Nevada

Newmont NevadaDonlin

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

GoldrushRound Mountain

HaileFort KnoxMarigold

Alaska JuneauCripple Creek and Victor

Castle MountainStibnite

LivengoodTurquoise Ridge

HycroftBarrick Nevada

Newmont NevadaDonlin

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Bald MountainSoledad MountainRound Mountain

LivengoodRelief Canyon

Mount HamiltonWharf

Newmont NevadaGold BarGoldfield

Long CanyonStibnite

HaileDonlin

Barrick Nevada

Source: S&P Global – Market Intelligence *Based on the Stibnite Gold 2014 Pre‐Feasibility Study; **Open‐Pit Reserves >0.5Mozs gold Circled Projects denote Nevada Gold Mines/Projects

LARG

EST US GOLD

MINES

2018

Produ

ction 000s oz G

old

LARG

EST US GOLD

RESOURC

ESM&I 000s oz Gold

LARG

EST US GOLD

RESER

VES

P&P 000s oz G

old

HIGHEST GRA

DE US OPE

N PIT

GOLD

RESER

VES

P&P g/t G

old

3rd largest years 1‐4

6th largest LOM 7th largest

9th largest

4th highest grade

10

Cash Cost Summary* LOM Yrs 1‐4

US$/oz US$/oz

Mining $222 $222

Processing $354 $312

G&A $77 $67

By-Product Credits -$85 -$118

Cash Cost Net By Products $568 $483Royalties $23 $23

Refining & Transport $6 $8

Total Cash Costs $597 $513Sustaining Capex $24 $44

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

Initial Capital $242 -

All-In Costs $872 -

2018 Gold AISC Cost Curve

ALL‐IN SUSTAINING COSTSLowest Quartile Project, based on 2014 PFS*

Source: S&P Global, Market Intelligence. 201X All‐in‐Sustaining Costs**Based on S&P Global Market Intelligence’s estimates and forecasts, and reported/actual data where available. Mine Economics cover 65.28% of 2018 global recovered gold production

Stibnite ProjectYrs 1‐4 LoM

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

All-

In S

usta

inin

g C

ost (

US$

/oz)

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

11

From the Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining companies:An overall Investment Attractiveness Index is constructed by combining the Best Practices Mineral Potential index, which rates regions based on their geologic attractiveness, and the Policy Perception Index, a composite index that measures the effects of government policy on attitudes 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 1

DRC 1Egypt 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 90Num

ber o

f +300kozpa

mines

(bub

ble size = combine

d prod

uctio

n)Fraser Institute Index (Overall Investment Attractiveness)

Size + Grade + Tier 1 Mining Jurisdiction

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

12

VALUE OPPORTUNITIES

13

(Based on Dec. 2014 PFS)Leverage to gold price

NPV Sensitivities (US$) US$1,200/oz Au(1) US$1,350/oz Au(2) US$1,500/oz Au(3) US$1,650/oz Au(4)

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

(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 Price (US$/oz)

14

Midas Gold vs. Gold Producer Landscape

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

FILLING THE VOID

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

Midas Gold*

Alamos

SSR

Roxgold

Pretium

TMACArgonaut

Teranga

Eldorado

Endeavour

McEwen

Equinox

Perseus

Torex

Dundee

Centamin

Alacer

AsankoCalibre

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

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

2019

Au

Prod

uctio

n (0

00oz

Au

Eq)

Mkt Cap (US$M)

15Strategic By‐Products ‐ ANTIMONYSupply RiskChina dominates the world antimony supply and there is no domestic antimony or tungsten production in the United States. The U.S. is reliant on China for the majority of its antimony and tungsten and not only is Chinese supply falling, but export restrictions from China have been in place since 2009.

The potential exists for new U.S. legislation aimed at encouraging domestic production of critical minerals.

Antimony Uses 2018 (USGS)

World Antimony Production 2018 (USGS)

Metal products38.7%

Non‐metal products30.5%

Flame retardants 30.8%

Australia2.5%

Bolivia1.9%

Burma2.1%

China74.7%

Russia5.6%

Tajikistan9.7%

Other3.6%

Effectiveness of antimony flame retardant (left coverall)

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

Q1 2016

Q2 2016

Q3 2016

Q4 2016

Q1 2017

Q2 2017

Q3 2017

Q4 2017

Q1 2018

Q2 2018

Q3 2018

Q4 2018

Q1 2019

Q2 2019

Q3 2019

Q4 2019

Average Antimony Price/quarter (US$/lb)

1616

Shrinking universe of quality gold developers Gold M&A Thematics

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

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

Advanced Gold Developers

New Gold Producers

2019 Guidance: 160kozMkt Cap: C$203M

Guyana

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

Mexico

Acquired by Agnico, C$570M

Acquired by New Gold, C$513M

Acquired by Osisko, C$308M

Acquired by B2, C$570M

Acquired by New Gold, C$3100M

Acquired by Rio Alto, C$300M

Acquired by Goldcorp, C$526M

Acquired by Oceanagold, C$856M

Acquired by Goldcorp, C$520M

Acquired by Eldorado, C$590M

Acquired by IAMGold, C$585M

Acquired by Kinross, C$1.2B

Acquired by Goldcorp, C$1.5B Acquired by Argonaut,

C$341M

Acquired by Osisko, C$550M

Acquired by Newmont, C$2.3B

Acquired by Goldcorp, C$3.4B

Acquired by Yamana, C$414M

Construction

DevelopersM&A

16

Commercial prod. inQ2 2020 ‐ 220kozMkt Cap: C$446M

Yukon

Joint Ventures

+ ++

+?

?

?

Acquired by OsiskoGold Royalties,

C$338M

Acquired by Zijin, C$1.4B

17

Robust gold & antimony recovery

PROCESSINGJaw Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill

Antimony Flotation

Gold Flotation

Pressure Oxidation

Gold Leach& Recovery

Antimony Concentrate

Gold Doré

Oxide

s(~14%)

High Sb Sulphides (~14%)

Tailings

Low Sb Sulphide

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

18

in indicated mineral resources1,2 betweenreserve pit and resource pit.

889k oz Au @ 1.7g/t Au

in inferred mineral resources1,2 betweenreserve pit and resource pit

714k oz Au @1.5 g/t Au

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.

1919

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


0.1% Sb

0.38 Moz 2.53 g/t Au0.25% Sb

2.5 Moz 1.99 g/t Au0.10% Sb

0.15 Moz 1.18 g/t Au0.76% Sb

Hangar Flats

Indicated Inferred


0.13% Sb


0.13% Sb

1.08 Moz 1.71 g/t Au0.20% Sb

0.34 Moz 1.37 g/t Au0.12% Sb

West End

Indicated Inferred

Probable Reserves*:1.3 Moz @ 1.22 g/t AuProbable Reserves*:1.3 Moz @ 1.22 g/t Au

1.59 Moz 1.25 g/t Au

0.47 Moz 1.27 g/t Au

Historic Tailings

Indicated Inferred

Probable Reserves*:102,000 oz @ 1.17 g/t Au

0.16% Sb

Probable Reserves*:102,000 oz @ 1.17 g/t Au

0.16% Sb

0.10 Moz 1.19 g/t Au

0.01 Moz 1.23 g/t Au

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

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

19

20

Mineral Resources & Reserves, Prospects

Exploration potential

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

Priority Prospects:• Small tonnage, high grade

e.g. Garnet, Scout, Upper Midnight• Bulk tonnage

e.g. Cinnamid‐Ridgetop, Saddle‐Fern, Rabbit• Undefined airborne targets

e.g. Mule, Salt & Pepper, Blow‐out

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

< 1M oz 1-2M oz 2-5M oz 5-10M oz 10-30Moz

>30M oz

# of

Dep

osits

Contained oz of Gold

Stibnite Gold Project

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

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

21

EXPLORATION UPSIDEHigh‐grade exploration targets

NE Yellow Pine, including intercepts of:• 162ft @ 5.4g/t Au• 45ft @ 5.9g/t Au

Hangar Flats below pit, including intercepts 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

Garnet conceptual underground target with 95 holes completed:

• 1‐2m ton range containing 250 – 500k oz Au at grades of 5 –8g/t Au*

Upper Midnight is a high grade prospect:75ft @ 14.8g/t Au100ft @ 6.7g/t Au

Scout is a high grade Sb prospect:39ft @ 4.5 g/t Au & 1.7% Sb550 ft @ 0.8 g/t Au & 2.0% Sb124 ft @ 2.4 g/t Au & 0.5% Sb

EXPLORATION POTENTIAL AROUND THE PFS PITS

HIGH GRADE UNDERGROUND PROSPECTS

YELLOW PINE

WEST EN

D

* The potential quantity and grade is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.

35ft @ 11.3g/t Au25ft @ 15.6g/t Au

22

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 naturalvegetationReusematerials on site

ENVIRONMENT

*Based on 2014 Pre‐Feasibility Study

23

HISTORIC MINING DISTRICT

24

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

25

Brownfields site & restoration opportunity

Stibnite’s Legacy

EXAMPLE: FISH PASSAGE BLOCKED SINCE 1938

MIDAS GOLD WOULD RESTORE FISH PASSAGE

26

SOCIAL LICENSE

27

• 71 lawmakers signed on as co‐sponsors ‐ included leadership in the Republican and Democratic caucuses in both houses

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

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

• Recognized Midas Gold’s involvement in the community, commitment to building a mine that will help the community and the environment and the dedication to being a partner with local communities proves Midas Gold has the right team to undertake this Project

Idaho’s House of Representatives and Senate passed, 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 SUPPORTJoint Memorial (Feb. 22/2018)

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

‐ Terry Gestrin (R‐Donnelly)

28

74.7%20.7%

Favor

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

Oppose

72.7%17.3%

America First

Global Trade

Favor or Oppose

Restarting Operations at the Stibnite Mining District?

Which comes closest to your opinion?

Idaho should lead the way by mining for precious metals here at home, putting America First and reducing our reliance on foreign

Global trade is important to the American economy and it is

okay to import critical products from countries like China.

29

SUSTAINABILITY 2019Living our values, every day.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. TRANSPARENCY. ACCOUNTABILITY.

SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE.

30

Community Agreements

Yellow PineCascadeDonnelly

New MeadowsRigginsCouncil

Idaho CountyAdams County

GOAL: Commit Midas Gold now and into the future to regular communication and coordination with local communities.

HOW: Community Advisory Council shall meet to get regular updates from Midas Gold and discuss topics of interest.

GOAL: Commit to supporting the needs of the community before, during and after the project.

HOW: Stibnite Foundation will share the profits of the Stibnite Gold Project at the discretion of the community board of directors.

GOAL: Encourage communities to be knowledgeable of the proposed project, anticipate needs and participate in the public process.

HOW: With no limits or expectations on content, ask that each community submit a letter to the US Forest Service regarding the Draft EIS.

31

PERMITTING

32

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

USFS:• NEPA EIS ‐ Record of Decision on

the Plan of Restoration and Operations

• Road Use & Power Line• Mineral Material• Timber Sale Permit & Contract USACE 404: Wetlands & StreamsEPA: • NPDES ‐Water discharges• SWPPP ‐ StormwaterUSFWS/NOAA: Section 7 ESA ‐Endangered Species ConsultationFCC: Radio CommunicationsBATFE: Explosives Handling MSHA: Mine Identification Number, Legal Identity Report, Ground Control Plan

Federal Permits and Authorizations

IDEQ:• Air Quality• Cyanidation• 401 Water Quality Certification• Waste Water Treatment• Solid Waste Permits• Point of Compliance• Drinking WaterIDWR:• Water Rights• Stream Channel Alteration• Dam Safety (Tailings Dam)SHPO: Cultural ClearanceIDL: Reclamation Plan Approval

State Permits

• Planning and Zoning ‐ Conditional Use Permit

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

Local Permits

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) andStibnite Joint Review Process (Sept. 2017)

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

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

4+ years

Operations, continued restoration and concurrent

reclamation388,000 oz Au/year (yrs 1‐4)

337 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 to be published

• Public comment period on draft EIS

• Feasibility Study to be published

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

• Final ROD

2017-2019

34

AB

C

Environmental baseline data collected to support EIS

Project extensively discussed with local communities and stakeholders

Plan of Restoration & Operations for mine development filed, declared complete

• NEPA process (EIS) underway

Regulatory Process Underway

Experienced management team in place

Support of well‐funded strategic investors

Corporate Strength

PFS and post‐PFS optimization completed Metallurgical optimization test work completed Resource optimization completed• Feasibility study pending

Feasibility Study Underway

PATH FORWARD

35

ADDITIONAL INFO

36

EXPERIENCED MANAGEMENTWe’ve done it before!

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

Sherwood Copper, ex‐EVPMiramar Mining

Step

hen Quin

Laurel Sayer

Micha

el Bogert

Darren Morgans

Alan

Haslam

Mckinsey Lyon

John

Meyer

Chris

Dail

Liz M

onger

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 Public 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

37

BOARDS OF DIRECTORSProven track record, local interests

Jaim

ie Don

ovan

Keith

Allred

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

Marcelo Kim

ChairmanPartner, Paulson & Co

Step

hen Quin

Director & CEOEx‐Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining & Northern Orion

Javier Schiffrin

DirectorPartner, Paulson & Co

Don

ald Yo

ung

DirectorEx‐KPMG, Placer Dome, director of Dundee Precious Metals

Lead DirectorEx‐Goepel, director of Dundee Precious

Metals, ex‐director of Miramar Mining

Peter N

ixon

MIDAS GOLD CORP.

Chair & DirectorServed four terms on McCall City Council,

two as mayor.

Resident of McCall, ID

Don

Bailey

Bob Ba

rnes

Shau

na Arnold

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

Scotty Daven

port

DirectorFounding member of

Valley County Economic

Development Council, business owner in Valley County.

Resident of McCall, IDAn

ne Lab

elle

DirectorEx‐VP Legal &

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

Mining

April W

hitney

DirectorCommunications

Director for Brundage Mountain Resort.

Resident of McCall, ID.

Laurel Sayer

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)

38

2018 MINERAL RESOURCES(in metric units, except oz; at US$1,050/oz Au, see Feb. 15/18 news release)

Classification Metric Tonnes(000s)

Gold Grade(g/t)

Contained Gold(000s oz)

Silver Grade(g/t)

Contained Silver(000s oz)

Antimony Grade(%)

Contained Antimony(000s lbs)

Measured:

Yellow Pine 4,623 2.53 377 3.91 581 0.25 25,821

Indicated:

Hangar Flats 19,697 1.71 1,080 4.80 3,041 0.20 86,962

West End 39,411 1.25 1,586 1.43 1,806 ‐ ‐

Yellow Pine 38,598 1.99 2,469 2.31 2,863 0.10 81,406

Historic Tailings 2,583 1.19 99 2.95 245 0.17 9,648

Total M&I 104,912 1.66 5,610 2.53 8,536 0.09 203,838

Inferred:

Hangar Flats 7,654 1.37 336 3.95 971 0.12 19,885

West End 11,566 1.27 472 1.20 446 ‐ ‐

Yellow Pine 3,814 1.18 145 0.72 88 0.00 0.76

Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563

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

39

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.

40

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

$1.5 billion in cash flow (after tax)

(after tax)

Payback in 3.4 years

01

02

AFTER TAX CASH FLOW (PFS* base case)At US$1,350/oz gold

‐$1,600

‐$1,200

‐$800

‐$400

$0

$400

$800

$1,200

$1,600

‐$600

‐$450

‐$300

‐$150

$0

$150

$300

$450

$600

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

Cumulative After Tax Cash Flow

($ m

illions)

After Tax Cash Flow

($ m

illions)

Year of Operation

Undiscounted Cash Flow

Undiscounted Cumulative Cash Flow


41

CAPITAL & OPERATING COST ESTIMATESDecember 2014 PFS*

Capital Cost Estimate*

Operating Cost Estimate*


42

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 furtherexploration 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.

43

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