RMX Corporate Presentation June 2015

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Corporate Presentation June 2015

Rubicon’s first gold bar #00001


Forward Looking Statements & Cautionary Notes

Cautionary Statement regarding Forward-Looking Statements and other Cautionary Notes

Forward-Looking Statements

This 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. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding the

start of projected initial production at the Phoenix Gold Project occurring in mid-2015, the anticipated timeline of the underground development of the Phoenix Gold

Project, the schedule of the mill commissioning process at the Phoenix Gold Project, the anticipated use of the proceeds of the loan facility and the anticipated

electricity cost savings the Company will realize in connection with the electricity cost savings program.

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. The material assumptions upon which such forward-looking statements are based

include, among others, that: the demand for gold and base metal deposits will develop as anticipated; the price of gold will remain at levels that will render the

Phoenix Gold Project economic; operating and capital plans will not be disrupted by operational issues, power supply, labour disturbances, or adverse weather

conditions; Rubicon will meet its estimated timeline for the development of the Phoenix Gold Project; Rubicon will continue to have the ability to attract and retain

skilled staff; the mineral resource estimate as disclosed in the Preliminary Economic Assessment with an effective date of June 25, 2013 and with an issue date of

February 28, 2014 (the “PEA”) will be realized; and there are no material unanticipated variations in the cost of energy or supplies, or in the pre-production capital and

operating cost estimate as disclosed in the PEA.

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 rates; actual results of current exploration activities; actual results of reclamation activities;

conclusions of future economic 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 construction activities and operations; timing and receipt of regulatory approvals of

operations; the ability of Rubicon and other relevant parties to satisfy regulatory requirements; the availability of financing for proposed transactions, 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; market

conditions and general business, economic, competitive, political and social conditions.

The PEA is preliminary in nature as it includes 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 the PEA will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral

reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,

taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources referred to in the PEA are uncertain in nature and

there has been insufficient exploration to define these inferred resources as an indicated or measured mineral resource category.

It is important to note that the information provided in this presentation is preliminary in nature. There is no certainty that a potential mine will be realized. A mine

production decision that is not based on a feasibility study demonstrating economic and technical viability does not provide adequate disclosure of the increased

uncertainty and specific risks of failure associated with such a production decision.

Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this 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. There can be no assurance

that forward-looking statements 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 statements. 2


Cautionary Note to U.S. Readers Regarding Estimates of Indicated and Inferred Resources

This 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 “inferred” 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.

Mineral Resources

Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by

environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources in this

estimation are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these inferred resources as an indicated or measured mineral resource and it is

uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an indicated or measured mineral resource category. The inclusion of inferred mineral resources are

considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. The mineral resources in

this press release were reported using CIM Standards.

Qualified Persons

The content of this corporate presentation has been read and approved by Michael Lalonde, P.Eng., President and CEO of Rubicon. He is a Qualified Persons as defined

by NI 43-101.

Forward Looking Statements & Cautionary Notes

3


The Rubicon Minerals Advantage

Low risk ‣ Significantly funded; substantial infrastructure built; fully permitted to 1,250 tpd;

‣ Safe jurisdiction; First nations exploration agreements signed.

High-grade gold project ‣ Positive and conservative PEA; 8.1 g/t Au to the mill;

‣ On schedule for projected initial production in mid-2015.

Experienced management team ‣ Proven production expertise in underground gold deposits;

‣ Over 100 years of operational experience.

4

Red Lake Ontario, Canada

Toronto


Cochenour (G)

Red Lake Gold Mines (G)

Phoenix Gold Project

(RMX)

F2 Structures

Red Lake, ON

Red Lake: Prolific Gold Mining District More than 26 million Ounces of Gold Produced

N

Rubicon (RMX) claims, 100 sq. miles. ~40% of claims in Red Lake

Goldcorp (G) claims

Ultramafic units

F2 folds

Gold projects in development

Existing gold mines

High-priority RMX exploration targets

Slate Bay

(RMX)

DMC (RMX)

Adams Lake (RMX)

East Bay (RMX)

5


Phoenix Gold Project Site Surface and Mill Construction Completed

6

• Mill construction completed

• Mill circuit commissioning continues to process

low-grade mineralized material

• Head frame and hoist commissioned

• Shaft completed to 730 m

• Camp completed to

300 person capacity

• Tailings management facility

completed to handle 2-years of

operations

• Surface roads, earth and civil works in place

• Power line and substation on site


SAG and ball mill Conveyor

CIL tanks Control room

Phoenix Gold Project Mill construction completed and commissioning

7


10-ton skip 1,250 hp Hoist Longhole drilling at

305-metre level

Phoenix Gold Project Underground ready for stoping

8


Phoenix Gold Project Upper-level Underground Development

Surface

Return air

raises

Fresh air

raise

337-metre loading pocket

685-metre loading pocket

Crusher station

Ore & waste passes

Shaft

Planned lateral development

610-metre haulage level

305-metre haulage level

Diagram facing North (not to scale)

Conveyer system

Crusher station

9

8,023 m of initial

U/G development

above 305-metre

level completed


Phoenix Gold Project Timeline

10

• Mill commissioning

commenced

• C$30 million flow-through

financing

(April 2015)

2015

Ramp-up period

Stockpiling

of mill feed

(December 2014)

First Gold Pour June 2015

U/G development

to projected initial

production

completed

(June 5, 2015)

Completed 38,000 m

infill drilling program

(January 2015)

• US$50 million

loan facility secured

• Processing low-grade

mineralized material

• Enrolled in IEI Program

(May 2015)

Projected initial

production

(forecast in July)

Q3 Operations update

(forecasted in October)


LOM projected gold production 2.19 million oz

Average annual projected gold production 165,300 oz

Diluted grade to the mill 8.1 g/t Au

Total dilution (internal and external) applied 44%

Cash operating cost US$599/oz (C$629/oz)

All-in sustaining cost2 US$870/oz (C$913/oz)

Average LOM daily throughput 1,900 tpd

Mining method 90% long-hole stoping

Production life 13.25 years

Gold recovery 92.5%

Shaft extension bottom 1,400-metre level

1 The PEA was prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. with metallurgical sections prepared by Soutex Inc., both of whom are independent of the Company as defined by NI 43-101, with

an effective date of June 24, 2013 and with an issue date of February 28, 2014. See FLS and Disclaimer section for important disclosure on the PEA. See also News Release dated June 25,

2013

2 All-in sustaining cash costs include operating costs, royalties, gold streaming, and sustaining capital and do not include any pre-production capital expenditures, allocation of estimated

corporate overhead costs or exploration costs.

Conservative, Positive PEA Highlights1

11

Conservative

compared to prior

mineral resource

estimates

Conservative

sustaining capex

estimate of

~US$185/oz

Manageable

throughput


TonnesRecovered Grade

(g/t Au)Recovered ounces

Red Lake Gold Mines (Goldcorp):

Campbell, Dickenson/High Grade Zone 12,989,559 23.5 9,833,638

Campbell (Placer Dome), 1949-2006 18,093,116 19.3 11,216,443

Madsen 7,872,681 9.7 2,452,388

Cochenour-Willans 2,096,654 18.5 1,244,279

McKenzie Red Lake 2,135,362 9.5 651,156

Howey 4,200,973 3.1 421,592

Hasaga 1,374,641 4.9 218,213

Starrat Olsen 823,554 6.2 163,990

Berens River 508,574 9.6 157,341

Uchi 686,806 5.2 114,467

Jason (Argosy) 250,903 12.6 101,875

H.G. Young 261,432 6.6 55,244

Sachigo River 42,145 38.8 52,560

McMarmac 138,779 10.1 45,246

Gold Eagle 163,379 7.7 40,204

Jackson Manion 95,578 8.8 27,142

Red Lake Gold Shore 78,320 8.4 21,100

Hudson Patricia 10,186 5.7 1,857

Buffalo 29,017 1.8 1,656

Abino 2,479 17.5 1,397

Lake Rowan 11,814 3.4 1,298

Kostynuk Brothers 523 66.9 1,126

Mount Jamie 882 13.3 377

Bathurst 510 18.7 307

Red Summit 536 16.1 277

Sol d'Or 415 19.3 258

Red Lake Camp total 51,868,822 16.1 26,825,431

Red Lake Camp total

(excluding Red Lake Gold Mines, Goldcorp)38,879,263 13.6 16,991,793

Phoenix Gold Project (RMX) 9,131,926 7.5 2,190,084

Conservatism Applied to the SRK Model

12

Source: Ministry of Northern

Development and Mines 1Projected recovered ounces

Phoenix Gold Project

recovered grade less

than half of the Red

Lake District camp

average


LOM Projected Production & Cost Profile1

0

50

100

150

200

250

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 $-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Projected production Cash operating cost/Recovered ounce

Po

ten

tial

An

nu

al

Pro

du

cti

on

(000)

Cash

Op

era

ting

Co

st P

er O

un

ce

(US

$)

13 1Based on PEA estimate.


‣ U/G: 2 ready for stoping; 5 stopes in various stages of development

‣ Rule of thumb: ~250 tpd per operating stope

~300 tpd from on-going stope development

‣ Commercial production: 70% of 1,250 tpd over 60 days

‣ Hoisting capacity1: 3,000 tonnes/12 hour shift

875 tpd for 60 days

1,250 tpd

Commercial production

Permitted capacity

Planned Path to Commercial Production …and beyond

14

300 tpd

250 tpd

250 tpd

250 tpd

250 tpd

Tonnes from stope

development

Tonnes from

operating stopes

1Hoisting from the 305-metre haulage level 305-m level

244-m level

183-m level

122-m level

Stopes under development

Planned lateral development

Underground Development Diagram (facing northeast)

(Diagram not to scale)

Planned first

two stopes


Alimak Access Sublevel Longhole Stoping For the first two stopes

Source: SRK (New PEA 2013) 15

Alimak

access


With US$ currently trading at ~C$1.231…

More than 80% of Phoenix Project projected operating cost is denominated in

C$

Despite the ~US$200/oz decline in the gold price since the PEA, the C$ gold

price is up 7% since PEA

US$50 million debt

received from CPPIB

The Canadian Dollar Advantage

16

1CAD/USD exchange rate is based as of June 23, 2015, at C$1.2363/US$1; source: Kitco


P/NAV Multiple: RMX vs. Canadian Gold Producers Chasing the Canadian producer multiple

17

RMX trades at an average discount of 34% from the mean P/NAV

multiple of Canadian producers

P/NAV Multiple – RMX vs. Canadian Gold Producers

Source: BMO Capital Markets, TD Securities, National Bank Financial, Company estimates (as of June 12, 2015)

BMO rating on RMX: Outperform, $2.00 targetNBF Rating on RMX: Outperform, $1.90 target TD rating on RMX: Speculative Buy, $2.25 target

0.9x

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

RMX KGI RIC WDO AUQ DGC LSG

NBF

Mean: 0.9x

0.6x

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

RMX KGI DGC AUQ LSG

BMO

Mean: 1.8x

0.6x

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

RMX RIC DGC LSG AUQ

TD

Mean: 1.0x


Exploration Potential: East Bay Deformation zone

18

N

Red Lake Gold Mines (G)

Cochenour (G)

GAZ Zone (G)

Footwall Zone (G)

CARZ/CARZ HW/Island Zone (RMX)

Phoenix Gold Project (RMX)

Abino (G)

McMarmac Mine

H.G. Young Mine (G)

McKenzie Mine

East Bay Deformation Zone (EBDZ)

East Bay claim (100% RMX)

Strong structural deformation trends

(containing ultramafic rocks)

Gold occurrences

Faulting structures

Several historical gold

occurrences in EBDZ

Ultramafic stratigraphy similar and

along strike to F2 deposit

Cross-cutting faulting structures

could explain gold mineralization

4.0 km

Chevron (G)

East Bay (RMX)

High-priority exploration targets


Near-Term Exploration Potential: CARZ and CARZ Hanging Wall

19


Nevada Claims: Emerging Long Canyon Gold District Opportunity

Rubicon controls 350

square miles of mineral

claims in northeastern

Nevada

Land package

sandwiched between

known, sediment-

hosted type of gold

mineralization: Long

Canyon (NEM) and

TUG deposit (WKM)

Rubicon currently

evaluating opportunities

to create value with

these claims

East Bay (RMX)

20


Low Risk

High-grade gold project

Experienced management team

The Rubicon Minerals Advantage

21


22

Appendices


Capital Structure

Shares outstanding 394 million

Restricted Shares1 2 million

Options 18 million

Warrants2 10 million

Fully diluted3 424 million

Share price (NYSE-MKT/TSX)4 US$1.08/C$1.31

Market capitalization4 C$516.1 million

30-day average daily trading volume4:

TSX 0.82 million

NYSE 0.55 million

Total 1.37 million 1Pending plan approval 2Warrants in consideration for the CPPIB Credit Investments Inc. Loan Facility 3Assuming in-the-money vesting of all options, warrants, and restricted shares 4Source: TSX InfoSuite as of June 23, 2015

23


Positive Economics in Various Gold Prices

1Includes the impact of the gold streaming agreement. 2Based on January 1, 2015 estimates on a go-forward basis.

Current PEA NPV and IRR Sensitivity Analysis1,2

Gold Price (US$/oz)

Discount

Rate $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500

After-tax NPV

(C$millions)

3% $ 366.8 $ 507.1 $ 634.0 $ 759.7 $ 885.2

5% $ 297.5 $ 423.1 $ 537.0 $ 649.1 $ 760.9

7% $ 241.3 $ 354.3 $ 457.0 $ 557.8 $ 658.0

After-tax IRR 13.0% 19.1% 24.9% 30.7% 36.6%

24

…based on a PEA C$/US$ exchange rate of 1.05


38,000 m Infill Drilling Program Long section facing west

25

Goals: Upgrade mineral resource above the 610m-level to 25.0 m spacing (or less)

24-36 months of potential production to 12.5 m spacing (or less) following definition drilling

Long section facing west

Hanging wall intercepts


38,000 m Infill Drilling Program Cross section facing north

26

Results confirm the Company’s expectations on

continuity and grade

Economic intercepts appear in areas outside the

planned stoping blocks; potential to expand

resource in the upper levels

Hanging wall intercepts


Source: SRK 1 CIM definitions were used for indicated mineral resources and inferred mineral resources 2 Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. All figures have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Reported at 4.0 g/t Au cut-off grade assuming an underground extraction scenario, a gold price of US$1,500 per ounce, and metallurgical recovery of 92.5% 3 Capping values of 200 g/t Au, 150g/t Au, and 30 g/t Au were applied to the composites from the Main and 45 Trend, HW, and External domains, respectively 4 Using drilling results to October 31, 2012 5 The PEA is preliminary in nature. Inferred mineral resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the inferred resources will be converted to the measured and indicated categories, that the indicated resources will be converted to the proven and probable mineral reserve categories and there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues

Improved Mineral Resource Estimate1,2,3,4,5

Improved continuity of resource model

High conversion rate >85% from inferred ounces

7.8 m average horizontal thickness

Higher grades reported at depth

Remains open at depth and along strike

Indicated mineral

resources

Inferred mineral

resources

600 m

4.0 g/t Au cut off

Category Tonnes Grade

(g/t Au)

Ounces

(000)

Indicated 4,120 8.52 1,129

Inferred 7,452 9.26 2,219

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate @ 4.0 g/t Au Cut-off

27

305-metre level

Shaf

t

N


Indicated Classification Inferred Classification5

Cut-off Grade

(g/t Au)

Tonnes

(000s)

Grade

(g/t Au)

Contained

Ounces Au (000)

Tonnes

(000s)

Grade

(g/t Au)

Contained

Ounces Au (000)

7.0 1,959 12.16 766 3,962 12.90 1,643

6.0 2,425 11.06 862 4,617 11.99 1,780

5.0 3,116 9.82 984 5,604 10.84 1,954

4.0 4,120 8.52 1,129 7,452 9.26 2,219

3.0 5,396 7.33 1,272 11,119 7.34 2,623

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

Source: SRK 1 CIM definitions were used for indicated mineral resources and inferred mineral resources 2 Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. All figures have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Reported at cut-off grade sensitivities ranging from 3.0 g/t Au to 7.0 g/t Au assuming an underground extraction scenario, a gold price of US$1,500 per ounce, and metallurgical recovery of 92.5% 3 Capping values of 200 g/t Au, 150g/t Au, and 30 g/t Au were applied to the composites from the Main and 45 Trend, HW, and External domains, respectively 4 Using drilling results to October 31, 2012 5 The PEA is preliminary in nature. Inferred mineral resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the inferred resources will be converted to the measured and indicated categories, that the indicated resources will be converted to the proven and probable mineral reserve categories and there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues

The 2013 Global Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various Cut-off Grades1,2,3,4,5 Drilling Results to October 31, 2012

28


Conservatism Applied to SRK Model Mineral Resource Estimate Comparisons

GEOEX - Amended

(2011)

AMC

(2011)

SRK

(2013)

Grade

(g/t Au) 17.3 (inferred) 14.5 (indicated)

17.0 (inferred)

8.5 (indicated)

9.3 (inferred)

Ounces 3.1 million (inferred) 0.5 million (indicated)

2.3 million (inferred)

1.1 million (indicated)

2.2 million (inferred)

Grade

interpolation polygonal inverse distance

cubed

ordinary kriging

Grade capping 10-5-2 oz 270 g/t Au 200 g/t Au (Main)

Cut-off grade

(g/t Au) 5.0 5.0 4.0

Metres drilled 166,886 259,000 355,611

Conceptual mining model

Grade to the mill

(g/t Au) n/a 13.9 8.1

Average stope width n/a 2.0 m 7.8 m

Overall dilution n/a 18% 44%

29


Cash Operating and All-In-Sustaining Costs

Cost Per Tonne Cost Per

Ounce

Cash operating cost components:

In-stope mining cost C$27 C$113

Underground utilities and services C$19 C$76

Material handling C$9 C$37

Surface, general, and administrative C$30 C$128

Processing C$20 C$84

Vertical/lateral operating development C$20 C$83

Pre-production vertical/lateral development C$26 C$108

Total cash operating cost C$151 C$629

Royalty1 (1.5%) C$5 C$22

Gold stream1 (6.3%) C$16 C$68

Sustaining capital cost C$47 C$194

All-in sustaining cash cost2 C$219

US$209

C$913

US$870

30

1 Assumes PEA gold price assumption of $1,385/oz

2 FX conversion assumes PEA C$/$US exchange rate of 1.05/1.00


Notes

31


Officers & Directors

Michael A. Lalonde, P.Eng.

President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director

David R. Beatty, C.M., O.B.E.

Chairman

Nick Nikolakakis, MBA

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Julian Kemp, BBA, CA, CPA, C.Dir.

Director

Bill Shand, P.Eng.

Vice President, Operations

Peter Rowlandson, P.Eng.

Director

Howard Bird, B.Sc., P.Geo.

Vice President, Exploration

Bruce A. Thomas, LL.B.

Director

Glenn Kumoi, LL.B.

Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

Michael D. Winship, P.Eng.

Director

Allan Candelario, CFA

Vice President, Investor Relations

Allan Candelario, CFA

Vice President, Investor Relations

Phone: 1.866.365.4706

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.rubiconminerals.com

Head Office

Suite 400 – 44 Victoria St.

Toronto, ON Canada M5C 1Y2

Toll Free: 1.866.365.4706

32

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.rubiconminerals.com/

RMX Corporate Presentation June 2015

Investor Relations

Transcript of RMX Corporate Presentation June 2015