Photo courtesy of the Idaho Historical Society Ref# 80-57-11

Stibnite – looking into the pit (1940s)

Golden Meadows Project Idaho, USA

GOLDEN MEADOWS All of the pieces for a world class gold-antimony project

2

Multi-million ounce Gold Resource

High Grade

Low Geopolitical Risk Large Scale

Production

Production Proven Metallurgy

Exploration Upside Strategic

By-products

100% Owned &

Royalty Free

Robust PEA

Lowest Quartile

Costs

Upside Opportunities

Past Producing Brownfields Site

Superior Returns

14 Year Mine Life

Indicated 4.20 Moz

Inferred 2.90 Moz

Golden Meadows

MULTI-MILLION OUNCE RESOURCE Large, high grade open pit resources with room to grow

3

Indicated 0.93 Moz

Inferred 0.39 Moz

Hangar Flats

Indicated 1.50 Moz

Inferred 0.61 Moz

West End

Indicated 1.80 Moz

Inferred 1.90 Moz

Yellow Pine

3 kilometres

* See NI43-101 slide at the back of this presentation for responsibility and disclaimers. Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are normally considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to measured and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied.

50km of new drilling to be incorporated into new resource estimate by end of Q1/13

1.65 g/t

1.95 g/t 1.44 g/t

1.61 g/t

HIGH GRADE Golden Meadows has above average grade for open pit deposits

4

2.4 2.3

1.95 1.8

1.61 1.44

1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

Grade (g/t Au)

Source: RBC Compilation from Metals Economics Group & public disclosure

Golden Meadows average grade 1.65 g/t

LOW GEOPOLITICAL RISK Golden Meadows located in low risk, mining friendly Idaho

5

Maplecroft identifies and monitors the key issues affecting the investment climates of 197 countries. The Atlas analyses yearly trends relating to dynamic risks, which reflect change over a short period of time, including governance, political violence, the macroeconomic environment, and included this year for the first time, resource nationalism. It also includes structural risks which reflect change over a longer timeframe, including economic diversification, resource security, infrastructure quality, the resilience of society to challenges, and the risk of complicity in human rights violations committed by regimes and business partners.

Golden Meadows Project Midas Gold Au-Sb

Thompson Creek Mine Thompson Creek Mining Mo

Phosphate District Agrium, Monsanto, Simplot, Stonegate

Sunshine Mine Sunshine Silver Mines

Ag

Lucky Friday Mine Hecla Mining Company

Ag-Pb-Zn

Idaho Cobalt Project Formation Metals

Co-Cu

Coeur d’Alene

Cascade

BOISE

IDAHO

PAST PRODUCING BROWNFIELDS SITE Redevelopment of an area actively mined 1928-97 with concurrent reclamation

6

Project area has extensive history of mining • Brownfields site, heavily disturbed • Good access with local infrastructure

and workforce

PRODUCTION SCALE Potential for large scale, low cost gold-antimony mine

7

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Morelos

Aurora

Black River Otijikoto

Net

Cas

h Co

sts (1

) (U

S$/o

z of g

old)

Annual Production (000s oz of gold)

PEA PFS FS Size of globe = initial CAPEX

Metates

Caspiche

Detour

Livengood

Blackwater

Courageous Lake

GOLDEN MEADOWS Yr 1-8

GOLDEN MEADOWS LOM

Kiaka Volcan

Brucejack

Magino

Amulsar

Rainy River

Esaase Bombore

Obaton

Eagle Gold

Toroparu

Angostura

Mt Henry

Yellowknife

North Bullfrom

Almas

Miraflores

Goliath

Goldfield New Liberty

Sugar

Coringa

Karma

Pantanillo

Curraghinalt

Ollachea

Upper Beaver Haile

(1) See non-IFRS measures below. Sources: Haywood Securities & Company Disclosure

PRODUCTION PROVEN METALLURGY Proven through past production and extensive test work

8

Gyratory Crusher

SAG Mill

Ball Mill

Antimony Flotation

Gold Flotation

Pressure Oxidation

Gold CIL & EW

Antimony Concentrate

Gold Doré

Oxi

des

High Sb Sulphides

Tailings

Sulp

hide

s

Sulphides at Golden Meadows have extensive history of: • High recoveries +/- 90% • Successful milling operations

(1920s through 1950s) • Test work by Midas Gold & prior

operators (e.g. Barrick, Hecla, Bradley)

Concentrate only autoclave • Treat just ~10% of mill feed • Lower CAPEX and OPEX • Examples: OceanaGold’s

Macraes Mine (NZ), Agnico-Eagle’s Kittila Mine (FIN)

STRATEGIC BY-PRODUCTS Potentially significant by-product credits

9

Flame Retardants

60%

Batteries & alloys 20%

Other uses 20%

Antimony Uses (USGS)

China 89%

Bolivia 3%

Russia 2% South Africa

2%

Tajikistan 1%

Other Countries

3%

World Antimony Production 2011 (USGS)

Supply Risk - China dominates world antimony

• There is no US domestic antimony mine production

• The US is reliant on China for majority of the antimony it consumes

• Chinese supply is falling • Export restrictions since 2009

Potential for new U.S. legislation aimed at expediting permitting for strategic metals

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

Antim

ony

($U

S/lb

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

100% OWNED & ROYALTY FREE First time in ~100 years the district is owned by one party

10

Historically this district suffered from fragmented ownership and high royalties

• Prevented efficient exploration and evaluation of true potential

Land package a mix of patented (privately held) and unpatented ground

ROBUST PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (1) Large scale, low cost, open pit operation

11

Years 1-8 Life-Of-Mine (14.2 years)

Base Case (At $1,400/oz gold)

Annual Average Total Annual

Average Total

Gold (oz) 390,000 3,121,000 348,000 4,922,000

Antimony (M lbs) 9.9 79.3 6.4 90.6

Cash Costs (US$/oz) (2)

(net of by-products) 331 425

Initial Capital (US$M) 879

Pre-tax NPV 5% (US$M) 2,136

After-tax NPV5% (US$M) 1,482

IRR (Pre-tax/After-tax) 34%/27%

After-tax Payback (years) 3.0

(1) The economic assessment in the PEA is preliminary in nature and uses inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that this PEA will be realized. The inferred mineral resource used in the economic analysis represents 37% of the total life-tonnes considered.

In this presentation, “M” = million, “K” = thousands, all amounts in US$

(2) See non-IFRS measures below

ROBUST PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT NPV levered to higher gold price

12

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

NPV

(US$

mill

ions

)

Gold Price ($/oz)

0%

5%

10%

Pre-tax NPV After-tax NPV

Base Case

Disc

ount

Rat

e

SUPERIOR RETURNS NPV vs. life of mine gold production 2011-12 Studies for Gold Projects (2)

13

Volcan

Curraghinalt

Caspiche

Livengood

Aurora

Bombore

Brucejack

Magino

Rainy River Back River Toroparu

Courageous Lake Kiaka

Morelos

Blackwater

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

Post

-Tax

NPV

@ U

S$1,

400/

oz G

old

(US$

mill

ions

)1

Life of Mine Gold Production (000s of oz)

1 Where NPV was not available at US$1,400/oz, it was extrapolated from available data 2 Source: Haywood Securities and company disclosure

Golden Meadows

PEA PFS FS Size of globe proportionate to initial CAPEX

LOWEST QUARTILE COSTS Golden Meadows is projected to be in the lowest quartile of industry cash costs(3)

14

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Morelos

Aurora

Black River Otijikoto

Net

Cas

h Co

sts (1

) (U

S$/o

z of g

old)

Annual Production (000s oz of gold)

PEA PFS FS Size of globe proportionate to initial CAPEX

Metates

Caspiche

Detour

Livengood

Blackwater

Courageous Lake

GOLDEN MEADOWS Yr 1-8

GOLDEN MEADOWS LOM

Kiaka Volcan

Brucejack

Magino

Amulsar

Rainy River

Esaase Bombore

Obaton

Eagle Gold

Toroparu

Angostura

Mt Henry

Yellowknife

North Bullfrom

Almas

Miraflores

Goliath

Goldfield New Liberty

Sugar

Coringa

Karma

Pantanillo

Curraghinalt

Ollachea

Upper Beaver Haile

(1) See non-IFRS measures below. Sources: Haywood Securities & Company Disclosure

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

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

Au Sb Construction

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITIES Three key opportunities to enhance already robust cash flow

15

Antimony by-product credit calculated on approx. 17% of total resource substantially

increases cash flow in Years 1 through 4

Project year

1) Upsize the plant modestly

2) Extend antimony credit for longer

3) Extend higher grade for longer

Average $305 million in after tax cash flow per year in first 8 years

Undiscounted Cash Flow

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITY #1 Upsize the plant

16 16

Oxi

des

Gyratory Crusher

SAG Mill

Ball Mill

Antimony Flotation

Gold Flotation

Pressure Oxidation

Gold CIL & EW

Antimony Concentrate

Gold Doré

High Sb Sulphides

Tailings

Sulp

hide

s

Upsizing (not twinning) key pieces of equipment would increase production and revenue while containing capital cost increases

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITY #2 Extend antimony credit for longer

17

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

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

Cont

aine

d Sb

Mat

eria

l Ton

nage

(mill

ions

of t

onne

s)

Year Oxide feed Sulphide feed

Sulphide Sb feed Sb Contained (10klbs)

Mill Feed & Contained Sb Summary 14.2 Year Mine Life

Antimony by-product credit calculated on only 17% of total resource Potential to expand antimony resource to some additional portions of the resource

High antimony feed

OPTIMIZATION OPPORTUNITY #3 Extend higher grade for longer

18

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

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

Gra

de (g

/t)

Min

eral

ized

Tonn

age

Min

ed (

mill

ions

of

tonn

es)

Year Yellow Pine Hangar Flats West End Gold grade

(Mineralized material mined in Year -1 is stockpiled and then processed in Year 1)

Extend higher grade material out for longer by: a) Defining more Yellow

Pine b) Defining something like

Yellow Pine (e.g. Scout) c) Blending in very high

grade material with lower grade material later in life

?

EXPLORATION UPSIDE Expansion around existing deposits – Yellow Pine example

19

Historical drilling largely confined to historic claim boundaries, limiting the resource within those boundaries Aim to find more high grade ounces in and around existing Yellow Pine deposit Conversion of in-pit unclassified material

• Potential to reduce strip ratio and increase resources

EXPLORATION UPSIDE Defined potential for new discoveries – Scout example

20

First of priority prospects to be drilled

Significant gold-silver-antimony system

Potential for enhanced by-product production

EXPLORATION 2012 geological, geophysical and geochemical programs

21

Successfully confirmed and extended areas of known or suspected mineralization and outlined several new gold-silver-antimony targets

EXPLORATION UPSIDE Blue sky potential in a World Class Gold District

22

Existing deposits open to expansion • Yellow Pine, West End & Hangar Flats

Entirely new targets for: • Bulk tonnage

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

• Small tonnage, high grade ˃ e.g. Garnet, Upper Midnight

• Undefined airborne targets ˃ 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

Golden Meadows

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

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

23

MOVING FORWARD

MAINTAIN SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT Taking a proactive approach

24

Have a positive local impact now - be a good citizen :

• Hire locally

• Use local suppliers & contractors

• Participate in local activities

• Openness & engagement

Do more than is required: • Voluntary environmental remediation

• High environmental and safety standards

DO WHAT IS RIGHT Develop a Sustainable project

25

Design for closure

Protect and enhance water quality, fisheries, wetlands, groundwater

Engage, inform, consult and consider stakeholders’ input

Demonstrate significant net local benefits

PERMITTING A streamlined approach: The Idaho Joint Review Process

26

Mine Plan Analysis Interagency Agreement • Plan Completeness • Scope of Work – Baseline Data Collection • EIS Alternatives; Effects; Mitigation • Draft / Final Permits & Plans • Reclamation Bonding • Public Involvement

Pre-Analysis Coordination Approval/Administration & Coordination • Exploration Plans • Long-Term Data Collection Needs • Environmental & Reclamation Standards

Post-Permitting Phase Interagency Coordination • Admin/Inspect/Monitoring • Compliance Actions • Plan & Permit Modifications • Reclamation / Closure

PERMITTING Idaho has a thorough and clearly defined process

27

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

EIS

STATE FEDERAL LOCAL

• Initial Plan of Operations • NPDES – Water Discharges • Corps 404 - Wetlands • SWPPP – Stormwater • ESA – Consultation NOAA

Fisheries • Native Consultation • Cultural/Historical • Air Quality • Waste Rock Handling • Powerline R-O-W

• Water Rights • Cyanidation • Plan of Operations • Reclamation Plan • Tailings Dam • Stream Channel Alteration • TMDL • Ground Water • Domestic Water Supply • Waste Water Treatment

• Comprehensive Plan • Zoning • Local Health District • Building Permits • Road Use Authorization • Conditional Use Permit

FINAL PLAN OF OPERATIONS / RECLAMATION PLAN

RECLAMATION BOND

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

EIS

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 2012 milestones and near-term value drivers

28

2012 • Infill, step-

out and exploration drilling

•Ongoing exploration

Q2 2012 •Resource

Update

Q3 2012 •PEA

2013 •Ongoing infill

and step-out drilling

•Ongoing exploration

•Ongoing studies in support of updated PEA

Q1-Q2 2013 •Resource

update to include 50,000m of 2012 drilling

2H 2013 •Updated PEA • Filing of

permits & EIS

WHY INVEST IN MIDAS GOLD? Midas has the key components for success

29

Proven Management & Board

Large, High Grade, World Class Open-Pit Deposit

Low Geopolitical Risk Production

Scale

Production Proven Metallurgy

Exploration Upside Strategic

By-products

100% Owned &

Royalty Free

Robust PEA

Lowest Quartile Costs

Optimization Opportunities

Community Support

30

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE(1) All Three Deposits comprising the Golden Meadows Project, Idaho

31 31

Mineral Resource Category

Tonnes (000s)

Gold Grade (g/t)

Contained Gold (000s oz)

Silver Grade(5)

(g/t)

Contained Silver (000s

oz)

Antimony Grade(4)(5) (%)

Contained Antimony (000s lbs)

Open Pit Oxide(2) Mineral Resources Indicated 10,573 0.90 305 0.00 - 0.00% 122 Inferred 2,201 0.97 68 0.00 - 0.00% 178

Open Pit Sulphide(3) Mineral Resources Indicated 67,653 1.80 3,925 0.60 1,312 0.07% 108,385 Inferred 53,917 1.63 2,822 0.93 1,603 0.08% 92,606

Total Open Pit Oxide + Sulphide(2)(3) Mineral Resources Indicated 78,226 1.68 4,229 0.52 1,312 0.06% 108,507 Inferred 56,117 1.60 2,890 0.89 1,603 0.07% 92,784

Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 25, 2012

(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate.

(2) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.42 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency.

(3) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency . The antimony subdomain is further limited to discrete zones of mineralization with grades that exceed 0.1% Sb.

(4) Where antimony grades are shown as “0.00” there is antimony present but it rounds to 0.00. (5) Antimony and silver were not estimated for the entire West End deposit and most of the Hangar Flats and Yellow Pine deposits due to a lack of sufficient assays, and are averaged into the totals at an assumed zero grade.

Mineral Resource Category

Tonnes (000s)

Gold Grade (g/t)

Contained Gold (000s oz)

Silver Grade (g/t)

Contained Silver (000s oz)

Antimony Grade (%)

Contained Antimony (000s lbs)

Open Pit Sulphide(3) Mineral Resources Indicated 9,999 2.31 743 3.15 1,012 0.49% 108,507 Inferred 8,639 2.08 576 5.04 1,400 0.49% 92,784

Antimony Subdomains(1) Mineral Resource, Yellow Pine & Hangar Flats Deposits

31

GOLDEN MEADOWS DEPOSIT CROSS SECTIONS

32

Yellow Pine

West End

Hangar Flats

PEA Conceptual site layout

33

Southern access 3 pits Tunnel water diversion Mill feed stockpiles Plant & facilities area Waste rock:

• On top of historic tailings & spent heap leach ore

• Backfill Yellow Pine pit

Tailings • Lined facility • Buttressed by waste rock

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Payable metal summary

34

-

5

10

15

20

25

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

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

Paya

ble

Antim

ony

(mill

ions

lb)

Paya

ble

Gol

d an

d Si

lver

(000

s oz)

Year Payble Gold (koz) Payable Silver (koz) Payable Antimony (Mlb)

Annual Average

Gold (000s oz)

Antimony (M lbs)

Silver (000s oz)

Yrs 1-8 390 9.9 39.9

LOM 348 6.4 23.7

*

* During Year 1, mill is ramping up to full production

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Financial modelling assumptions

35

Assumption Value

Gold price Variable ($1,200/oz to $1,800/oz)

Silver price Variable ($20/oz to $30/oz)

Antimony price Variable ($5.50/lb to $7.00/lb)

Au & Ag metal recoveries Variable by deposit & type (oxide vs.. sulphide)

Sb recovery 80%

Au doré payable 99%

Ag doré payable 95%

Sb concentrate payable 65%

Au doré refining/transport costs $8.00/payable oz

Ag doré refining/transport costs $0.50/payable oz

Sb transport, marketing, insurance, etc. $171.60/t

Contingency Variable (from 5% to 25%)

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Operating cost summary (base case)

36

Area Unit ALL LOM Oxide

LOM Sulphide

LOM High Sb

Mining (1) $/t mined 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67

Mining (1) $/t milled 7.78 7.78 7.78 7.78 Processing - Stockpile handling $/t milled 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 - Crushing & grinding $/t milled 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 - Oxide Processing $/t milled 0.82 5.53 - - - Sb flotation $/t milled 0.28 - - 1.66 - Au flotation $/t milled 1.77 - 2.08 2.08 - POX $/t milled 7.87 - 9.23 9.23

G&A, Water $/t milled 4.39 4.39 4.39 4.39 Total Unit OPEX $/t milled 25.87 20.66 26.44 28.10

Cash Cost (2) (excluding by-product credits)

$/oz Au 532 (479 Yrs 1-8)

Cash Cost (2) (including by-product credits)

$/oz Au 425 (331 Yrs 1-8)

(1) Excluding Year -1 (pre-strip) capitalized mining costs (2) see non-IFRS measures below

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Capital cost summary

37

Area Initial

Capital ($M)

Sustaining Capital

($M)

Closure ($M)

Totals ($M)

Mining Equipment & Pre-Stripping 121.9 107.2 - 229.1

Processing and Utilities 243.0 79.6 - 322.6

On-Site Infrastructure 93.1 38.8 - 131.9

Off-Site Infrastructure 67.0 - - 67.0

Indirect Costs 148.9 19.4 - 168.3

Owner's Costs & Capital Spares 39.7 - - 39.7

Closure - - 53.0 53.0

Contingency 165.7 4.7 - 170.4

Totals 879.3 249.7 53.0 1,182.0

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Financial summary

38

Gold Price ($/oz)

Pre-Tax ($ millions)

NPV (0%) NPV (5%) NPV (10%) IRR

1,200 2,549 1,464 834 26.6%

1,400* 3,580 2,136 1,296 33.7%

1,600 4,611 2,808 1,759 40.0%

1,800 5,642 3,480 2,221 45.8%

Gold Price ($/oz)

After-Tax ($ millions)

NPV (0%) NPV (5%) NPV (10%) IRR

1,200 1,874 1,036 546 21.9%

1,400* 2,557 1,482 853 27.2%

1,600 3,233 1,923 1,157 31.9%

1,800 3,910 2,364 1,460 36.3%

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Pre-tax NPV5% sensitivities by case

39

Case Variable Pre-tax NPV5% ($ millions)

Case A CAPEX 1,667 1,464 1,262 OPEX 1,801 1,464 1,128 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 625 1,464 2,304

Case B* CAPEX 2,339 2,136 1,934 OPEX 2,473 2,136 1,800 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,162 2,136 3,111

Case C CAPEX 3,011 2,808 2,606 OPEX 3,145 2,808 2,472 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,700 2,808 3,917

Case D CAPEX 3,683 3,480 3,278 OPEX 3,817 3,480 3,144 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 2,237 3,480 4,723

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT After-tax NPV5% sensitivities by Case

40

Case Variable After-tax NPV5% ($ millions)

-20% Variance

0% Variance

20% Variance

Case A CAPEX 1,176 1,036 889 OPEX 1,242 1,036 816 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 436 1,036 1,593

Case B* CAPEX 1,619 1,482 1,344 OPEX 1,683 1,482 1,277 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 828 1,482 2,122

Case C CAPEX 2,060 1,923 1,786 OPEX 2,124 1,923 1,721 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,193 1,923 2,652

Case D CAPEX 2,501 2,364 2,227 OPEX 2,565 2,364 2,163 Metal Price, Recovery or Grade 1,547 2,364 3,181

*Base case

41

Plant • Decontaminated, demolished,

recycled, rehabilitated Remaining Tailings supernate

• Treated for discharge or evaporated

Tailings and waste rock dump • Rehabilitated and Meadow Creek

reestablished with discharge to Hangar Flats settling basin

Yellow Pine pit backfill • Rehabilitated and EFSF Salmon

River reestablished to facilitate fish habitat

Water diversion tunnel • Bulk-headed at both ends

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Closure concepts

RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

42

Short Term Long Term

Risks Ability to complete infill drilling for 2013 PFS to convert inferred mineralization to indicated

Permitting timelines and opposition to project

Antimony market and the impact of alternate products on the process flow sheet

Opportunities Secondary processing of antimony concentrate (Sb metal, Sb trioxide, sodium antimonate)

Exploration success (e.g. Scout) &/or discovery of higher grade oz that would defer lower grades/margin oz to later

Infill drilling within pit limits converting waste rock to resource

Estimate Sb & Ag for full deposits outside the 0.1% Sb shells

Geotechnical drilling steepening pit slopes, and reducing strip ratios

Accelerated permitting through land swap &/or critical metals legislation

Gold concentrate sales versus secondary gold processing

Alternate oxide material flow sheet, e.g. Heap leaching

Bulk flotation results in improved metallurgical recoveries, etc.

Possible 25-50% increase in throughput

REGULATORY AFFAIRS Steps

43

Use PEA to engage with regulators, communities, NGOs, other stakeholders • Consider and optimize options • Mitigate impacts

• Demonstrate: ˃ Concurrent environmental & fisheries enhancement as part of overall mine plan

˃ A robust closure and final reclamation plan

˃ Significant local benefits through employment & business opportunities

Commence permitting of a mining and processing operation post-PFS • EIS/Plan of Operations

˃ Participation of USFS, US EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries at federal level, Idaho DEQ, Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, Idaho Dept. of Lands, Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game

˃ 50+ permits required

• Continued community, NGO and stakeholder engagement

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Ongoing voluntary remediation

44

Midas is not waiting to address legacy impacts from historic mining:

• Voluntary remediation program to reduce sediment loading of creeks

˃ 5,000 trees planted in 2011, 8,245 planted in 2012

˃ 18.5 acres seeded

˃ 5 acres of historic disturbance reclaimed

˃ Dust suppression improvements to 11 km of public roads plus airstrip

˃ Replaced or repaired numerous culverts and creek crossings

High standards for earning a social licence:

• Stakeholder engagement and participation

• Conducting exploration to high standards

˃ Meeting or exceeding Best Management Practices

˃ Protecting water quality & fisheries

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Potential Economic Benefits (Base Case)

45

Significant positive impact already on-going: • Largest private employer in Valley County

˃ More than 70% from Idaho, half of which are from Valley/Adams counties

• ~90% of 2012’s $50+ million expenditures spent in Idaho, 90% of it locally

PEA estimates potential future benefits: • More than 400 direct employees for 14+ mine life • Average annual payroll of ~$20 million

˃ Salary levels forecast at more than double Idaho average

• University of Idaho estimates 2.5 times as many spin-off jobs as direct jobs • Approximately $1,223 million in taxes payable over the 14+ year mine life:

˃ Federal: $800 million ˃ State: $220 million ˃ County: $3 million ˃ Excludes payroll taxes, state sales taxes, & income taxes paid by employees

46

COMPANY INFORMATION

CAPITALIZATION Well funded with strong institutional and insider support

47

Institutional 18%

Vista 28%

Insiders & Founders

15%

Other 39%

I&O: 114,794,136

$32.4 million in cash (Sept 30) Analyst coverage:

• Macquarie Capital Markets ˃ Michael Gray

• Desjardins Capital Markets ˃ Adam Melnyk

• RBC Capital Markets ˃ Stephen Walker

• BMO Capital Markets ˃ John Hayes

• Exploration Insights Newsletter ˃ Brent Cook

Including: GCIC (Dynamic) RBC Global Precious Metals Franklin American Century Passport Craton Capital Sun Valley Gold

Midas Gold acquired the Yellow Pine property from Vista in 2011 in exchange for shares of Midas Gold

EXPERIENCED BOARD

48

Stephen Quin, President, CEO & Director • Ex-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining & Northern Orion Explorations

Peter Nixon, Chair • Ex-Goepel Shields & Partners; current director of Dundee Precious Metals & Kimber

Fred Earnest • Current President & CEO of Vista Gold; ex-Pacific Rim, Dayton

Jerry Korpan • Ex-Yorkton Securities UK, former Bema Gold director, current director of B2Gold

Wayne Hubert • Former CEO of Andean, previously Meridian Gold VP Business Development

Mike Richings • Current Chair & former CEO of Vista Gold; ex-Allied Nevada, Atlas, Lac Minerals

John Wakeford • Ex-Hemlo, Battle Mountain & Miramar; former Sr. VP and current Director with Sabina

Gold & Silver

Don Young, Audit Committee Chair • Ex-KPMG, Placer Dome; current director of Dundee Precious Metals & Kimber

PROVEN MANAGMENT

49

Stephen Quin President & CEO

P.Geo. with 30-year track record of project acquisition, advancement & value creation

President & COO, Capstone Mining Corp. to Dec./11; formerly President & CEO, Sherwood Copper; formerly Executive VP, Miramar Mining & Northern Orion Explorations

Darren Morgans CFO

Formerly Controller & Corporate Secretary with Terrane Metals Prior experience with Placer Dome, MIM Holdings & PwC

Anne Labelle VP Legal & Sustainability

Geologist and a lawyer, previously Manager of Legal Affairs & Sustainability with Capstone Mining

Responsible for permitting and regulatory matters for Yukon & BC Mines

Liz Caridi Manager of IR, Corporate Secretary

Previously Director of IR & Corporate Secretary with Rainy River Prior to that Corporate Communications & Compliance with Rubicon Minerals

Bob Barnes COO Experienced mine operator with regulatory experience

Former VP Operations with Capstone Mining, responsible for operations in Canada and Mexico Responsible for permitting & operation of Wharf Au Mine, S. Dakota

John Meyer VP Development P. Eng. with extensive experience in mine development

Former Project Manager for Kinross Gold’s Fruta del Norte (FDN) gold project in Ecuador, managing the design and development of this high-grade refractory gold project from PEA to FS; Prior to Kinross, held positions with Aurelian and Barrick

Chris Dail Exploration Manager CPG with 25-year track record of greenfield and brownfields gold discoveries (Nevada, Alaska, Montana, Western Australia)

Worked with Chevron, Cominco, Asarco, Kennecott, Anschutz, Electrum, Piedmont, Gold Crest

Richard Moses Field Operations Manager P.Geo with expertise in cold-weather drill definition

Formerly site manager for International Tower Hill’s Livengood project, Previously responsible for major drill programs at Pebble and Donlin Ck.

Rick Richins Regulatory/permitting Consultant 30 years experience in permitting/compliance for large mining projects in US

EIS for Kensington Mine, Alaska & Thunder Mtn. (Idaho); Rochester (Nevada) and Stibnite (Idaho) EIS & permitting; Beartrack, Grouse Creek, Thunder Mtn. and West End mines in Idaho

50

REGULATORY INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE WITH NI43-101

51

The technical information in this presentation (the “Technical Information”) has been approved by Stephen P. Quin, P. Geo., President & CEO of Midas Gold Corp. (together with its subsidiaries, “Midas Gold”) and a Qualified Person. Midas Gold’s exploration activities at Golden Meadows were carried out under the supervision of Christopher Dail, C.P.G., Qualified Person and Exploration Manager and Richard Moses, C.P.G., Qualified Person and Site Operations Manager. For readers to fully understand the information in this presentation, they should read the technical report (to be available on SEDAR or at www.midasgoldinc.com by mid-September 2012) in its entirety (the “Technical Report”), including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to the information set out in this presentation that qualifies the Technical Information. The Technical Report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections or summaries should not be read or relied upon out of context. The technical information in the Technical Report is subject to the assumptions and qualifications contained therein.

Some of the mineral resources at Golden Meadows are categorized as indicated and some as inferred mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are normally considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to measured and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied.

Cautionary Note – The mineral resource estimates referenced in this presentation use the terms “Indicated Mineral Resources” and “Inferred Mineral Resources.” We advise you that while these terms are defined in and required by Canadian regulations, these terms are not defined terms under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Industry Guide 7 and are normally not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC. “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. The SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute SEC Industry Guide 7 compliant “reserves” as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. Midas Gold is not an SEC registered company.

The resource estimation for the gold deposits at Golden Meadows was completed by David Rowe, C.P.G of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc. under the supervision of Guy Dishaw, P. Geo, of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc. The other Qualified Persons responsible for the PEA study are Gordon Doerksen, P.Eng., of JDS Energy and Mining Inc. (overall project management and economic analysis); Dino Pilotto, P.Eng., of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (mining); Bruce Murphy, FSAIMM, of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (mine geotech); Maritz Rykaart, P.Eng., of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (waste management); John Duncan, P.Eng. of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (water management); Chris Martin, C.Eng., of Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd. (metallurgy); Kevin Scott, P.Eng., of Ausenco Solutions Canada Inc. (infrastructure and mineral processing); and Rick Richins, BS, MS, of RTR Inc. (environmental considerations) – see the technical report for relevant assumptions and disclaimers.

NON-IFRS PERFORMANCE MEASURE "Cash Operating Costs" is a non-IFRS Performance Measure. This performance measure is included because this statistic is a key performance measure that management uses to monitor performance. This performance measure does not have a meaning within IFRS and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. This performance measure should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with IFRS.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

52

Statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are “forward-looking information” or “forward-looking statements” (collectively, “Forward-Looking Information”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward Looking Information includes, but is not limited to, disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action; the timing and costs of future exploration activities on the Corporation‘s properties; success of exploration activities; permitting time lines and requirements, requirements for additional capital, requirements for additional water rights and the potential effect of proposed notices of environmental conditions relating to mineral claims; planned exploration and development of properties and the results thereof; planned expenditures and budgets and the execution thereof. In certain cases, Forward-Looking Information can be identified by the use of words and phrases such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “potential” or “does not anticipate”, “believes”, “conceptual”, “base” case”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. Statements concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute forward-looking statements to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that may be encountered if the Golden Meadows Project is developed. In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, the Corporation has applied several material assumptions, including, but not limited to, certain assumptions as to production rate, operating cost, recovery and metal costs as set out in this presentation, that any additional financing needed will be available on reasonable terms; the exchange rates for the U.S. and Canadian currencies in 2013 will be consistent with the Corporation‘s expectations; that the current exploration and other objectives concerning the Golden Meadows Project can be achieved and that its other corporate activities will proceed as expected; that the current price and demand for gold will be sustained or will improve; that general business and economic conditions will not change in a materially adverse manner and that all necessary governmental approvals for the planned exploration on the Golden Meadows Project will be obtained in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; the continuity of the price of gold and other metals, economic and political conditions and operations. Forward-Looking Information involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Corporation to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factors include, among others, risks related to the availability of financing on commercially reasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds; operations and contractual obligations; changes in exploration programs based upon results of exploration; changes in estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources; future prices of metals; availability of third party contractors; availability of equipment; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; accidents, effects of weather and other natural phenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under U.S. federal and Idaho rules and regulations; impact of environmental remediation requirements and the terms of existing and potential consent decrees on the Corporation‘s planned exploration on the Golden Meadows Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation‘s dependence on one mineral project; the nature of mineral exploration and mining and the uncertain commercial viability of certain mineral deposits; the Corporation‘s lack of operating revenues; governmental regulations and the ability to obtain necessary licences and permits; risks related to mineral properties being subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title; currency fluctuations; changes in environmental laws and regulations and changes in the application of standards pursuant to existing laws and regulations which may increase costs of doing business and restrict operations; risks related to dependence on key personnel; and estimates used in financial statements proving to be incorrect; as well as those factors discussed in the Corporation's public disclosure record. Although the Corporation has attempted to identify important factors that could affect the Corporation and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in Forward-Looking Information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that Forward-Looking Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on Forward-Looking Information.

Except as required by law, the Corporation does not assume any obligation to release publicly any revisions to Forward-Looking Information contained in this presentation to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

53

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Tel: 778.724.4700 Fax: 604.558.4700 E-mail: info@midasgoldcorp.com Suite 1250 – 999 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC CANADA V6C 2W2

www.midasgoldcorp.com