Corporate Presentation June 2018

Transcription

1 Building Long-Term Shareholder Value Corporate Presentation June 2018

2 Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Notes Cautionary Statement regarding Forward-Looking Statements and other Cautionary Notes This corporate presentation contains statements that constitute forward-looking statements and forward looking information (collectively, forward-looking statements ) within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities legislation. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as believes, intends, may, will, should, plans, anticipates, potential, expects, estimates, forecasts, budget, likely, goal and similar expressions or statements that certain actions, events or results may or may not be achieved or occur in the future. In some cases, forward-looking information may be stated in the present tense, such as in respect of current matters that may be continuing, or that may have a future impact or effect. Forward-looking statements reflect our current expectations and assumptions, and are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any anticipated future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding the anticipated timing of the filing of the NI Technical Report, observations from the 2018 infill drilling and underground development samples from test mining, impact of the data from the 5,000 m of drilling completed in the fourth quarter of 2017 and activities from the 2018 Exploration Program on the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate, the potential advancement of the Phoenix Gold Project to a viable commercial operation, the potential value of the Company s tax loss pools, the potential to improve the quantities and classification of the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate, the impact of the new 2018 geological model and information on the Company s understanding of the F2 Gold Deposit and evaluation of mining methods for the Phoenix Gold Project, the additional exploration work required to further improve and reconcile the geological model for the F2 Gold Deposit, the anticipated timing of the reactivation of the Phoenix Gold Project s mill, the further steps necessary to potentially improve upon the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimates, including targeted infill and step-out drilling to potentially convert Inferred Resources to Indicated Resources, using the results from the bulk sampling program for reconciliation and validation purposes, the evaluation of the McFinley Deposit and other close proximity targets for potential inclusion in a future Mineral Resources Estimate, and follow-up drilling of the F2 Gold Deposit at depth and along strike. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made and represent management s best judgment based on facts and assumptions that management considers reasonable. If such opinions and estimates prove to be incorrect, actual and future results may be materially different than expressed in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Rubicon to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others: possible variations in mineralization, grade or recovery or throughput rates; uncertainty of mineral resources, inability to realize exploration potential, mineral grades and mineral recovery estimates; actual results of current exploration activities; actual results of reclamation activities; uncertainty of future operations, delays in completion of exploration plans for any reason including insufficient capital, delays in permitting, and labour issues; conclusions of future economic or geological evaluations; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; failure of equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; accidents and other risks of the mining industry; delays and other risks related to operations; timing and receipt of regulatory approvals; the ability of Rubicon and other relevant parties to satisfy regulatory requirements; the ability of Rubicon to comply with its obligations under material agreements including financing agreements; the availability of financing for proposed programs and working capital requirements on reasonable terms; the ability of third-party service providers to deliver services on reasonable terms and in a timely manner; risks associated with the ability to retain key executives and key operating personnel; cost of environmental expenditures and potential environmental liabilities; dissatisfaction or disputes with local communities or First Nations or Aboriginal Communities; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; market conditions and general business, economic, competitive, political and social conditions; our ability to generate sufficient cash flow from operations or obtain adequate financing to fund our capital expenditures and working capital needs and meet our other obligations; the volatility of our stock price, and the ability of our common stock to remain listed and traded on the TSX. 2

3 Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Notes Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this corporate presentation and Rubicon disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, except as required by applicable securities laws. Readers are advised to carefully review and consider the risk factors identified in the Company s annual information form dated March 22, 2018 under the heading Risk Factors and in other continuous disclosure documents of the Company filed at for a discussion of the factors that could cause Rubicon s actual results, performance and achievements to be materially different from any anticipated future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Readers are further cautioned that the foregoing list of assumptions and risk factors is not exhaustive and it is recommended that prospective investors consult the more complete discussion of Rubicon s business, financial condition and prospects that is included in this corporate presentation. The forward-looking statements contained herein are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. Qualified Person The content of this corporate presentation relating to geology and exploration has been read and approved by George Ogilvie, P.Eng., President, CEO, and Director, who is a Qualified Person as defined by NI Cautionary Note to U.S. Readers Regarding Estimates of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources This corporate presentation uses the terms Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources and Inferred Mineral Resources. The Company advises U.S. investors that while these terms are recognized and required by Canadian securities administrators, they are not recognized by the SEC. The estimation of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources involves greater uncertainty as to their existence and economic feasibility than the estimation of Proven and Probable Reserves. The estimation of Inferred resources involves far greater uncertainty as to their existence and economic viability than the estimation of other categories of resources. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of a Measured, Inferred or Indicated mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility studies, pre-feasibility studies or other economic studies, except in prescribed cases, such as in a preliminary economic assessment under certain circumstances. The SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute reserves as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. Under U.S. standards, mineralization may not be classified as a reserve unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time the reserve determination is made. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of a measured, indicated or inferred mineral resource exists or is economically or legally mineable. Information concerning descriptions of mineralization and resources contained herein may not be comparable to information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of the SEC. 3

4 Corporate Vision Three-pronged approach to build long-term shareholder value Potentially building a mid-tier gold Company: 1. Advancement of the Phoenix Gold Project to commercial production; 2. Organic growth opportunities with exploration targets within 2 km of the Phoenix Gold Project; and 3. Exploring our vast Red Lake Properties land package. 4

5 Capital Structure and Shareholder Info Strong balance sheet and institutional support Balance Sheet and Capital Structure Approximate cash balance: Nominal long-term debt outstanding (December 31, 2020): Lease liabilities ~C$21 M C$12.0 M C$2.5 M Shares outstanding: 65,853,092 Options outstanding: 4,199,703 RMX share price: Market Data (June 8, 2018)** Market capitalization: Avg. 30-day daily trading volume (TSX & OTC markets) C$1.21 C$79.6 M George Ogilvie 31, % (475,940 shares) Equity ownership breakdown* Retail 8.24% CPPIB Credit 15.19% Royal Gold 5.13% Institutional Investors 70.72% Analyst Coverage BMO TD Securities Laurentian Bank Mackie Research Andrew Mikitchook Daniel Earle Ryan Hanley Stuart McDougall Institutional shareholders include: Mackenzie Financial Ninepoint Partners Donald Smith & Co. Greywolf Sentry Investments Sun Valley Gold Franklin Templeton RBIM *Numbers may not add due to rounding **Source: TSX and OTC markets, as of June 8,

6 Infrastructure and Permits in Place >C$770 million spent on infrastructure and development Head frame and hoist commissioned 13 km of U/G development; Shaft completed to 730 m below surface 200-person camp Tailings management facility completed Surface roads, earth and civil works in place Power line and substation on site Item: Mill construction Surface construction Underground exploration, development, sampling, etc. Capital spent/tax pools (C$) ~$150 M ~$95 M ~$525 M 1,250 tpd mill 91.5% recoveries during 2015 Substantially permitted Total Tax loss pools (April 2018) 6 $770 M $687 M $387M Phoenix Gold Project $300M can be used externally 6

7 Conceptual Asset Values Mitigate Downside Risk Assets carry conceptual values comparable to the Company s market cap Hard assets and equipment at site: More than ~C$300 M of equipment and hard assets could potentially have a resale value of ~C$30 M Red Lake Properties (28,266 ha): Based on precedent land transactions in Red Lake, Rubicon s Red Lake Properties could have a conceptual value of between C$30-50 M Tax loss pools and end working capital: Potential value of C$10-15 M Current balance: ~C$21 M Hard assets and equipment Red Lake Properties Financial assets CPPIB Credit: C$12 M with 5% coupon (payment-in-kind) Long-term debt Rubicon current market capitalization: C$79.6 M 7 7

8 Steps to Bring Confidence Back to the Phoenix Gold Project Hired reputable consultant and peer reviewer from the start: Golder Associates and T. Maunula & Associates have been working with Rubicon since early Focus on structural geology: 3,500 m structural oriented drilling, 10,000 m historical core relogged, and extensive underground mapping shows discrepancies with the 2016 geological model infill and step out drilling showing higher grades compared to 2016 block model: 25,000 m drilled in 2017 and 20,000 m planned for 2018 Structural Interpretation shows better continuity: Simplified interpretation allows for the evaluation of bulk mining methods 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate demonstrates significant growth 25,000-30,000 tonnes of test mining/bulk sampling in 2018: To further refine and potentially validate 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate; Processing slated for mid-2018 Potential to significantly enhance the quantities and classifications of the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate 8

9 Structural Interpretation 10 Comparison of structural interpretations of the F2 Gold Deposit Riedel vein system: System of mineralized quartz-actinolite veins that appear to be primary structural controls on gold mineralization at the F2 Gold Deposit 2013 Structural Interpretation 2016 Structural Interpretation 2018 Structural Interpretation North (mine-grid) More continuity of gold mineralization within the HiTi Basalt Units (main host rock) compared to the 2016 geological model Evaluating bulk mining methods: Test mining sublevel longhole method on current test stopes (10) Refer to endnote #10 Historical drill holes HiTi Basalt Units Ultramafic Flow Units High-grade domain D1 N-S structures D2 E-W structures Quartz-Breccia Zones (higher grade) D2 dextral transpresion R veins Riedel veins system R veins (orientations): P veins Plan Views 9

10 Material Growth in 2018 Mineral Resources 11 Consideration for potential bulk mining methods 113% increase in M+I Resources*; 80% increase in Inferred Resources*; improved grades: Mainly attributed to a re-interpretation of geological and structural controls on mineralization along with recognizing the potential for larger scale mining which resulted in broader mineral domains 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate April 30, 3.0 g/t Au Cut-off Resource Category Quantity (000'tonnes) Grade (g/t Au) Contained Gold Ounces Measured (M) ,000 Indicated (I) 1, ,000 Golder (lead) & T. Maunula (peer reviewer): More than 12 months of collaboration with Rubicon M + I 1, ,000 Inferred 3, ,000 Encouraging results: Initial observations from test mining consistent with 2018 Mineral Resources; too early to draw conclusions Effective date for this Mineral Resource is April 30, 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate uses a break-even economic cut-off grade of 3.0 g/t Au based on assumptions of a gold price of US$1,300 per ounce, an exchange rate of US$/C$ 0.77, mining cash costs of C$97/t, processing costs of C$20/t, G&A of C$5/t, sustaining capital C$10/t, refining, transport and royalty costs of C$53/oz, and average gold recoverability of 92% Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not demonstrate economic viability There is no certainty that all or any part of this Mineral Resource will be converted into Mineral Reserve All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates and totals may not add correctly (11) Refer to endnote #11 *There is no certainty that the Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource categories, that the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources will be converted to the Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve categories and there is no certainty that the updated Mineral Resource statement will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of Mineral Resources in the updated Mineral Resource statement may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. 10

11 Material Growth in 2018 Mineral Resources Potential to enhance quantities and classifications 20,000 m of infill/step-out drilling: To Potentially improve the classification of Inferred Resources; potential to grow resources from Exploration Target 2018 Mineral Resource Block Model Diagram Zone 2 (Hanging Wall and West Limb Basalts) Section View Looking West (Mine-Grid) Model reconciliation based on 25,000-30,000t bulk sampling: To increase confidence and validate a future Mineral Resource Estimate Evaluating McFinley and Close Proximity Targets: Evaluating historical McFinley Deposit and Close Proximity Targets, which could potentially be added to any future Mineral Resource Estimate F2 Gold Deposit open at depth and along strike: High-grade intercepts at 1,600 m, below current bottom of 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate 11

12 2018 Exploration Program Conceptual underground section diagram looking north Surface Shaft Fresh air raise Conceptual ramp to surface More than 9km of U/G development 25,000-30,000t of test mining between the 122- and 244- metre levels; up to 4,000 m of bazooka drilling at the stope faces 305-metre haulage level 337-metre loading pocket 610-metre haulage level 200-metre exploration drift, parallel to the strike of the F2 Gold Deposit Ore and waste passes 20,000 m of infill/step-out drilling at the 305-, 610- and 685-metre levels; Building exploration drift at 610-metre level Conveyer system 685-metre loading pocket Completed development Diagram looking north (not to scale) Drilling platforms Planned development Main F2 Gold Deposit 12

13 2018 Test Mining Conceptual Diagram 9 Between 25,000-30,000 tonnes planned starting mid-2018 Long section looking west 3 test stopes: Each test stope will be blasted, mucked, stockpiled, and processed separately, for better reconciliation More than 15,000 tonnes of mineralized material currently on surface Test stopes are previously well developed and drilled, allowing the Company to take advantage of sunk capital for reduced costs and timelines 977 test stope 997 mined test stope 994 mined test stope 015 test stope 030 mined test stope 2018 planned test stopes 122-metre level 161 test stope 183-metre level 244-metre level 305-metre level Previously mined test stopes Existing underground development 60 m (9) Refer to endnote #9 Please refer to the Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Notes at the beginning of this presentation with respect of the Company s Qualified Person. 13

14 Anticipated 2018 Exploration Program Timeline 2018 H1 H Exploration Program: 20,000 m of infill and step-out drilling Structural Interpretation Exploratory development in the main F2 Gold Deposit Structural Interpretation will continue to be refined with data from test stoping and drilling ~15,000t of material stockpiled on surface Test mining, bulk sampling, and bazooka drilling 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate Results from bulk sampling; Decision on feasibility study 14

15 Prolific Red Lake Gold District: Camp has produced more than 29 million ounces of gold RMX claims: 28,776 hectares ~40% of claims in Red Lake Goldcorp (G) claims Ultramafic units F2 folds Gold projects in active exploration Existing gold mines RMX prospective exploration targets Phoenix Gold Project (RMX) East Bay (RMX) N Slate Bay (RMX) McCuaig (RMX) D2 Structures DMC (RMX) Cochenour (G) H.G. Young (G) Rahill-Bonanza (PG/G) Red Lake Gold Mines (G) Adams Lake (RMX) Hasaga (PG) Red Lake, ON 15

16 Recent Land Transactions in Red Lake Rubicon owns a sizeable land package in Red Lake Date Property Size (ha) Seller Buyer Sale price* Price/ha Nov 2017 McCuaig (40%) 50 Golden Tag Rubicon C$0.7 M C$14,630/ha Mar 2017 Dec 2015 Derlak (near Madsen) Buffalo claims (near Hasaga) 219 Orefinders Pure Gold C$1.2 M C$5,465/ha 513 Pure Gold Nov 2015 Springpole 32,448 Gold Canyon Jun 2014 Newman- Madsen >807 Mar 2014 Madsen 4,193 Sabina Gold & Silver Claude Resources Premier Gold First Mining Finance ~C$5.0 M ~C$56.2 M C$9,747/ha C$1,732/ha Pure Gold ~C$2.8 M C$3,463/ha Pure Gold ~C$8.8 M C$2,087/ha Additional info Land transaction Land transaction Land transaction; Pure Gold gets 1.0% NSR Company acquisition; MRE Land transaction Asset transaction 500 tpd mill, MRE Rubicon Red Lake Exploration Land Package (excluding Phoenix Gold Project claim) 28,266 ha *Total consideration of cash and share values at the time of acquisition Source: Company reports and Rubicon estimates 16

17 Close Proximity Targets Potential LOM incremental feed of the Phoenix Gold Project Shaft Long section looking north west Camp McFinley Northern Peninsula CARZ Island Zone F2 North McFinley Deep 244-metre level exploration drift F2 Gold Deposit 1000 m 5-6 close proximity targets within 2 km of the Phoenix Gold Project All are potentially accessible from underground In-house modelling of the mineralized zones and generate conceptual tonnes and grade for the zones; rank each zone as to potential to fit in pipeline Build Rubicon Red Lake model to look at bigger picture (structural and lithological model) Evaluating the resource potential of Historic McFinley, Northern Peninsula, CARZ, and Island Zone 17

18 Close Proximity Targets McFinley Deep Plan View B Zone Structure C02: 2.66 g/t Au over 0.5 m 1.05 g/t Au over 0.6 m Shaft C03: 4.87 g/t Au over 0.4 m 2.31 g/t Au over 0.5 m Historic McFinley Deposit C Zone Structure C03: 3.60 g/t Au over 0.5 m 1.53 g/t Au over 0.9 m Main F2 Gold Deposit Drill hole U/G development Scale: 200 m Historic McFinley Deposit (2002) 1 Inferred: 66,801 oz Au (303,006 tonnes grading 6.86 g/t Au) 1 Not compiled according to NI

19 Close Proximity Targets McFinley Deep Potential LOM incremental feed of the Phoenix Gold Project Drilling intersected goldbearing quartz veins and sulphides through four zones, similar to the lithological sequence in the historic McFinley Deposit Drill hole ended in HiTi basalts, suggesting that mineralization remains open to the west (mine grid) Historic McFinley Deposit (2002) Inferred: 66,801 oz Au (303,006 tonnes grading 6.86 g/t Au) More than 550 m deep from the bottom of the historic McFinley Deposit mineral resource 122-metre level 244-metre level 305-metre level Shaft Isometric view looking northwest 183-metre level Main F2 Gold Deposit 610-metre level C04: 3.66 g/t Au over 0.4 m 2.93 g/t Au over 0.7 m 3.48 g/t Au over 1.0 m 5.55 g/t Au over 0.7 m 685-metre level Drill hole U/G development Scale: 200 m 19

20 Close Proximity Targets Northern Peninsula, CARZ & Island Zone Historical high-grade intercepts along strike and adjacent to the F2 Gold Deposit warrant follow up drilling Compiling dataset and evaluating mineral resource potential for eventual drill program F2 North Select historical high-grade intercepts: Island Zone (not true widths) PZ-23: 70.1 g/t Au over 3.1 m PZ-12: 28.7 g/t Au over 1.4 m PZ-47: 22.2 g/t Au over 1.7 m PZ-25: 15.8 g/t Au over 3.5 m PZ-03: 15.5 g/t Au over 4.8 m PZ-02: 15.0 g/t Au over 2.8 m Carbonate Zone ( CARZ )(not true widths) PR-15-11: g/t Au over 2.00 m PR-15-11: 4.88 g/t Au over m (incl g/t Au over 7.00 m) PR-15-16: 8.48 g/t Au over 3.25 m (incl g/t Au over 2.25 m) PR-15-19: 8.43 g/t Au over 1.05 m PR-15-19: 2.30 g/t Au over m (incl g/t Au over 2.00 m) PR-15-06: g/t Au over 2.65 m PR-15-09: 7.84 g/t Au over 1.50 m Plan view 20

21 Red Lake Regional Properties Highly-prospective exploration targets Several highly-prospective grassroots exploration targets 3# Sidace Potential exploration work will commence if the Phoenix Gold Project s advancement is on the right path Targets were evaluated and prioritized by an exploration consultant with +20 years of experience in Red Lake 4# Slate Bay 2# East Bay 1# McCuaig 21

22 Key Takeaways to the Rubicon Story Advanced exploration. Red Lake. High-grade gold potential 1. Encouraging drill results and Structural Interpretation: Data and observations collected to-date demonstrate discrepancies with the 2016 estimates; potential to evaluate bulk mining methods with the Structural Interpretation; 2. Significant growth in 2018 Mineral Resources: Overall increase in grade, tonnes, and ounces; potential for further improvement in quantities, classification, and confidence with 2018 Exploration drilling and test mining activities; 3. Mitigated Risk: conceptual resale value of assets are comparable to the market capitalization of the company, potentially mitigating downside risk; and 4. Exploration upside potential: excellent potential with McFinley Deep and Close Proximity targets and vast land package in a prolific highgrade gold camp. 22

23 Appendices 23

24 Structural Interpretation 10 Conceptual diagram of F2 Gold Deposit local geology; Plan View Remains open along strike N Hanging Wall Basalt West Limb Basalt HiTi Basalt Units Drill hole intersecting Ultramafic Flow Units Drill hole intersecting Felsic Intrusive Units Drill hole intersecting HiTi Basalt Units Underground development Shaft F2 Basalt Remains open along strike (10) Refer to endnote #10 Historic McFinley Deposit area 50 m 24

25 Structural Interpretation 10 Conceptual diagram of F2 Gold Deposit local geology Three HiTi Basalt lenses: Zone 1 (domain): F2 Basalt (horizontal widths of m without felsic dykes; around 8 m with felsic intrusions) Zone 2 (domain): West Limb Basalt (horizontal widths of 8 m), and Hanging Wall Basalt (horizontal widths of 4-6 m; larger zones at depth) Mineralization encountered at 1,600 m below surface: Current Mineral Resource Estimate is down to the 1,325 m below surface Historic McFinley Deposit area 305-metre level 610-metre level Hanging Wall Basalt West Limb Basalt F2 Basalt Structural Interpretation will continue to be refined, enhanced, and supported with data and observations collected from the 2018 Exploration Program HiTi Basalt Units Drill hole intersecting Ultramafic Flow Units (10) Refer to endnote #10 Drill hole intersecting Felsic Intrusive Units Drill hole intersecting HiTi Basalt Units Underground development Section view looking north 50 m 25

26 Material Growth in 2018 Mineral Resources 11 Increased tonnes, grade and ounces at all cut-offs and categories Comparison between 2018* and 2016** Estimated Quantities at Reported Cut-Off Grades Quantity (000 tonnes) Grade (g/t Au) Contained Gold Ounces ** Change ** Change ** Change 3.0 g/t Au Measured (M) N/A N/A 41,000 0 N/A Indicated (I) 1, % % 240, , % Total M+I 1, % % 281, , % Inferred 3,884 2,491 56% % 749, , % 3.5 g/t Au Measured (M) N/A N/A 38,000 0 N/A Indicated (I) % % 217, ,000 81% Total M+I 1, % % 255, , % Inferred 3,146 1,959 61% % 672, ,000 87% 4.0 g/t Au Measured (M) N/A N/A 35,000 0 N/A Indicated (I) % % 195, ,000 84% Total M+I % % 230, , % Inferred 2,556 1,519 68% % 601, ,000 96% (11) Refer to endnote #11 *There is no certainty that the Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource categories, that the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources will be converted to the Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve categories and there is no certainty that the updated Mineral Resource statement will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of Mineral Resources in the updated Mineral Resource statement may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. **2016 Estimates are no longer current and should not be relied upon. 26

27 Material Growth in 2018 Mineral Resources 11 Potential to enhance quantities and classifications 2018 Mineral Resource Block Model Diagram Plan View, 244-Metre Level 2018 Mineral Resource Block Model Diagram Zone 1 Section View Looking West (Mine-Grid) (11) Refer to endnote #11 27

28 History of Mineral Resource Estimates Historical estimates are not current and should no be relied upon Grade (g/t Au) GEOEX Amended 2,6 (2011) AMC 3,6 (2011) 17.3 (inferred, capped) 14.5 (indicated) 17.0 (inferred) Ounces 3.1 M (inferred) 0.5 M (indicated) 2.3 M (inferred) Tonnes (t) M (inferred) M (indicated) M (inferred) Grade interpolation Grade capping Cut-off grade (g/t Au) Metres drilled at F2 Gold Deposit Grade to the mill (g/t Au) Average stope width polygonal oz ( g/t Au) inverse distance cubed SRK 4,6 (2013) 8.5 (indicated) 9.3 (inferred) 1.1 M (indicated) 2.2 M (inferred) M (indicated) M (inferred) ordinary kriging 270 g/t Au 200 g/t Au (Main) 150 g/t (HW), 30 g/t (Ext) ,886 m 259,000 m + 2,000t bulk sample 6.7 (indicated) 6.3 (inferred) SRK 5,6,7 (2016) 0.1 M (indicated) 0.3 M (inferred) M (indicated) M (inferred) ordinary kriging g/t Au (HG domains) 5 45 g/t Au (LG domains) 355,611 m 450,175 m + trial stoping Metrics from PEA n/a n/a n/a 2.0 m 7.8 m n/a Overall dilution n/a 18% 44% n/a (2) Refer to endnote #2, (3) Refer to endnote #3, (4) Refer to endnote #4, (5) Refer to endnote #5, (6) Refer to endnote #6 (7) Refer to endnote #7 Please refer to the Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Notes at the beginning of this presentation with respect of the Company s Qualified Person. 28

29 Close Proximity Targets McFinley Deep Cross Sections of B and C Zone Structures Historic McFinley Deposit (2002) 1 Inferred: 66,801 oz Au (303,006 tonnes grading 6.86 g/t Au) C03: 4.87 g/t Au over 0.4 m 2.31 g/t Au over 0.5 m Historic McFinley Deposit 122-metre level 122-metre level 183-metre level 183-metre level C02: 2.66 g/t Au over 0.5 m 1.05 g/t Au over 0.6 m 244-metre level C03: 3.60 g/t Au over 0.5 m 1.53 g/t Au over 0.9 m 244-metre level 305-metre level 305-metre level Potential gold-bearing structure Drill hole 1 Not compiled according to NI U/G development 29

30 Endnotes 1. For more information regarding 2017 Exploration program drilling results, please refer to the news releases dated September 18, 2017, November 16, 2017, December 14, 2017, and February 20, 2018, which are available on our website at 2. For more information regarding the amended inferred mineral resource and geological potential estimates prepared by Geoex Ltd. please refer to the news release dated March 31, 2011, which is available on our website at and the Technical Report dated April 11, 2011 available on under Rubicon s profile in SEDAR at 3. For more information regarding the 2011 PEA study prepared by AMC Mining Consultants, please refer to the news release dated June 29, 2011, which is available on our website at and the Technical Report dated August 11, 2011 available on under Rubicon s profile in SEDAR at 4. For more information regarding the 2013 PEA study prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., please refer to the news release dated June 25, 2013, which is available on our website at and the Amended & Restated Technical Report dated February 28, 2014 available under Rubicon s profile in SEDAR at 5. For more information regarding the 2016 SRK mineral resource estimate prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., please refer to the news release dated January 11, 2016, which is available on our website at and the Technical Report filed on February 25, 2016 available under Rubicon s profile at 6. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. Samples have been capped where appropriate. 7. Underground mineral resources reported at a cut-off grade of 4.0 g/t Au of gold per tonne assuming a gold price of US$1,125/oz. and a gold recovery of 92.5%. 8. For more information regarding the first trial stope reconciliation, please refer to the news release dated November 3, 2015, which is available on our website at 9. For more information regarding 2018 Exploration program please refer to the news release dated January 23, 2018 which is available on our website at For more information regarding the Structural Interpretation, please refer to the news release dated March 12, 2018 which is available on our website at For more information regarding the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate, please refer to the news release dated April 30, 2018 which is available on our website at 30

31 31

32 For more information, please contact: Allan Candelario, CFA Director, Investor Relations and Corporate Development