Rubicon Minerals Updated January 2019 Corporate Presentation

TSX : RMX | OTCQX : RBYCF
Corporate Presentation
January 2019
Advancing the Phoenix Gold Project to Potential Commercial Production

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 www.sedar.com 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 43-101.
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.
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
with respect to advancing the Phoenix Gold Project to commercial production; mineral resource estimates; our strategy; future drilling and exploration programs; the anticipated timing of a mineral resource estimate update, a PEA; the estimated
resale/conceptual values of the Company’s assets; the potential positive impacts of the bulk sampling results on the economic potential on the Phoenix Gold Project; the potential of metal recoveries to reduce operating costs; expected mill capacity;
statements with respect to our beliefs or expectations relating to the potential mining methods for the project, stope definition drilling, levels of recoveries from gravity and mill capacity; and the statements under Key Takeaways to the Rubicon Story.
Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management and qualified persons as of the date such statements are made and represent management’s and qualified persons’ best judgment based on facts and assumptions
(including, without limitation, assumptions discussed herein and in the Technical Report) 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; uncertainties with respect to the ability of the Company to deliver a mineral resource up-date, a PEA on the timelines contemplated; conclusions of future economic or geological evaluation (including uncertainties inherent to
economic studies such as a PEA); 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.
Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Notes
2

Corporate Vision
Three-pronged approach to build long-term shareholder value
3
Building a mid-tier gold Company by:
1. Advancing the Phoenix Gold Project to commercial
production;
2. Growing organically with exploration targets within 2 km
of the Phoenix Gold Project; and
3. Exploring our vast ~28,000 ha Red Lake Properties land
package.

Board and Management Team Strengthened
Expertise in geology, underground mining, finance and law
4
Technical Management Team
George Ogilvie, P.Eng., President and CEO • 29 years of management, operating, and technical experience
• Led the successful turnaround of Kirkland Lake Gold and its acquisition of St.
Andrew Goldfields
• Grew Rambler Metals from grassroots exploration to profitable junior producer
Mike Willett, P.Eng., Director of Projects • 37 years of management, operating and technical experience
• Led the increase in mineral resources and permitting as President and CEO of
Tamerlane Ventures Inc.
• Held senior roles with March Consulting Associates/Hudbay.
Board of Directors
Julian Kemp, BBA, CPA, CA, C.Dir (Chair) • Led Rubicon through a successful strategic review and CCAA process
• Former CFO Fortune Minerals
Peter R. Jones, P.Eng. • Led the successful IPO of Hudbay Minerals Inc. and its turnaround
• Former Chair and CEO of Adanac Molybdenum, Chair of Medusa Mining and
Augyva Mining Resources
Dr. David A.S. Palmer, PhD, P.Geo. • Led the discovery of the Borden Deposit as President and CEO of Probe Mines and
the sale of the company to Goldcorp in 2015
• Current President and CEO of Probe Metals
Daniel Burns, JD, MBA, CPA, CMA, ICD.D, ACC • Experienced director in fields of financial services
• President and CEO of NDC Solutions Inc.
• Current Chair of World Council of Credit Unions
Sasha Bukacheva, CFA, MSc. • Previously a top-ranked base metals Equity Research Analyst for BMO
• Former Vice President, Finance and Administration for Stans Energy Corp.

Capital Structure and Shareholder Info
Strong balance sheet and institutional support
Balance Sheet and Capital Structure
Approximate cash balance: ~C$16 M
Nominal long-term debt outstanding (Term Dec 31/20)
(Transferred to Sprott Lending):
C$12.0 M
Lease liabilities C$2.5 M
Shares outstanding: 70,273,129
Options/Warrants outstanding***: 5,159,703
Institutional
Investors
72.40%
George
Ogilvie
0.68%
CPPIB
Credit
14.23%
Retail
7.56%
Royal
Gold
5.13%
Equity ownership breakdown*
5
Analyst Coverage
BMO Andrew Mikitchook
TD Securities Daniel Earle
Laurentian Bank Ryan Hanley
Mackie Research Stuart McDougall
Industrial Alliance George Topping
Canaccord Genuity Tom Gallo
Market Data (January 15, 2019)**
RMX share price: C$1.26
Market capitalization: C$88.5 M
Avg. 30-day daily trading volume
(TSX & OTC markets)
100,372
*Numbers may not add due to rounding
**Source: TSX and OTC markets, as of January 15, 2018
***Includes Sprott Lending warrants
Institutional shareholders include:
Mackenzie Financial Ninepoint (Sprott)
Donald Smith & Co. Greywolf
Sentry Investments Sun Valley Gold
Franklin Templeton U.S. Global
(475,940 shares)

• 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
6
Infrastructure and Permits in Place
>C$770 million spent on infrastructure and development
Item: Capital spent/Tax pools (C$)
Mill construction ~$150 M
Surface construction ~$95 M
Underground exploration,
development, sampling, etc.
~$525 M
Total $770 M
Tax loss pools (April 2018)
$687 M
$387M – Phoenix Gold Project
$300M – can be used externally
6
• 1,250 tpd mill (permitted)
• 95.1% recoveries during 2018
• Substantially permitted

Rebuilding Confidence in
The Phoenix Gold Project
7
• Hired reputable consultant and peer reviewer from the start: Golder Associates and T. Maunula &
Associates have been working with Rubicon since early 2017.
• Structural Interpretation shows better continuity: Simplified interpretation allows for the evaluation
of bulk mining methods
• 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate demonstrates significant growth in M&I (+113%) and Inferred
(+81%) resource ounces
• Positive bulk sample reconciliation: Validates 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate and
new geological model
• Loan Facility Transferred to Sprott Lending: Provides additional validation and credibility to the
Phoenix Gold Project and Rubicon.
• Updated Mineral Resource Estimate (H1/2019): 20,000 m of infill and step-out drilling completed in
2018 to grow the quantities and classifications of the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate
• Deliver a New PEA (at a minimum) in mid-to-late 2019

TSX : RMX | OTCQX : RBYCF 8
2018 Mineral Resource Estimate2 Validated
Focused on upgrading categories and growing overall ounces
Resource
Category
Quantity
(000'tonnes)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Contained
Gold Ounces
Measured (M) 188 6.80 41,000
Indicated (I) 1,186 6.30 240,000
M + I 1,374 6.37 281,000
Inferred 3,884 6.00 749,000
2018 Mineral Resource Estimate2 – April 30, 2018*
@ 3.0 g/t Au Cut-off
• Golder (lead) & T. Maunula (peer
reviewer): Collaboration with Rubicon
since early 2017
• Bulk sample results validates 2018
Mineral Resource Estimate and
geological model
• An updated NI 43-101 Mineral
Resource Estimate (H1/2019) will
benefit from 20,000 m of drilling
information from 2018 that was
focused on growing M+I
• 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
*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.
(2) Refer to endnote #2 for further details

Positive Bulk Sample Reconciliation1
Tonnes, grades, and ounces higher than modelled
Bulk sample results Block model
Difference
(∆)
Difference
(%)
Tonnes (t) 32,551 30,360 +2,191 +7.2%
Grade (g/t Au) 4.93 4.65 +0.28 +6.1%
Ounces (oz) 5,165 4,539 +625 +13.8%
External dilution 8.7% 10.0% -1.3 -13.0%
• Validates 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate and new geological
model for the F2 Gold Deposit;
• F2 Gold Deposit amenable to bulk mining (sublevel longhole); and
• Strong foundation to continue advancing and de-risking the
Phoenix Gold Project
*Results viewed by Golder Associates Ltd. and an accounting of gold ounces in the mill was
reconciled to less than 0.5%, numbers may not add up due to rounding. External dilution estimated
by Rubicon, assumes zero grade for unplanned (external) mining dilution. Based on a 3.0 g/t Au
cut-off grade
(1) Please refer to end note #1 for further details.
2018 Bulk Sample Reconciliation Results*
(before external mining dilution)

Positive Bulk Sample Reconciliation1
Milling results improves Project economics
(1) Please refer to end note #1 for further details;
(2) Please refer to end note #2 for further details;
*Based on a 22-hour Mill availability 10
Categories Result
Average stope height (m) 21 m
Average stope strike length (m) 27 m
Average stope width (m) 6 m
External mining dilution (% ) 8.7%
Achieved throughput
70 tph
1,540 tpd*
Mill recovery (%) 95.1%
Recovery from gravity circuit
(%) 43.2%
Approximate silver (Ag) ounces
recovered 525 oz Ag
2018 Mineral Resource Estimate2 @ 3.0 g/t Au
Cut-off – Zone 2 Grade Distribution
Long section looking east
Higher-grade stopes
under potential
commercial production
scenario (after capital
development)
Potential to operate at
1,800 tpd at current
configuration with
minor modifications
Translates to lower
processing costs in
future mining

2019 Exploration Program:
Updated Mineral Resource Estimate
Mainly step-out drilling (up to 20,000 m)
New PEA (at a minimum)
2019
H1 H2
Strategy for 2019
Continuing to advance and de-risk the Phoenix Gold Project
11
Will benefit from at least
20,000 m of drilling in 2018
Focusing on targets at depth
at the F2 Gold Deposit
3

2019 Exploration Program3
Focused on upgrading categories and growing overall ounces
12
*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.
2019 Exploration Program:
Up to 20,000 m of step-out drilling to
potentially expand overall resources
*
2018 Mineral Resource Block Model Zone 2
Hanging Wall and West Limb Basalts
Section View Looking East (Mine-Grid)
Updated NI 43-101 Mineral Resource
Estimate scheduled for H1/19:
Will benefit from
20,000 m of infill drilling completed in 2018 to
convert resources to M+I
Exploration
Target
potential:
500-800kt @
5.0-7.0 g/t Au
200m
Conceptual 854-m level

2018 Mineral Resource Block Model @ 3.0 g/t Au Cut-off Grade Zone 2
Longitudinal view looking east (mine grid)
Drill hole
intercept grades
3-5 g/t Au
5-7 g/t Au
10+ g/t Au
7-10 g/t Au
1-3 g/t Au
2018 Mineral Resource
Block Model Categories
Exploration Targets*
Indicated
Inferred
Measured
*Not a mineral resource category
(greater than 80-metre centres) but
contains sparsely drilled mineralized
material
Existing underground
development
13
Scale: 200 m
305-18-09
305-18-08
305-18-03
305-18-12
305-18-06
305-18-05
610-18-01
610-18-04
610-17-29
610-18-06
610-18-05
685-18-03
685-18-09
685-18-11
685-18-13
685-18-02B
685-18-19
685-18-22
Planned exploration
drift extension
2018 Infill Drilling Results8
Potential to expand Measured and Indicated Resources
Shaft
610 m level
685 m level
305 m level
244 m level
122 m level
84 m level
46 m level
183m level
Remains open
at depth and
long strike
(8) Refer to endnote
#8 for further details

2018 Infill Drilling Results8
High-grade mineralization intersected in Inferred/Explore areas
14(8) Refer to endnote #8 for further details

Phoenix Gold Project Underground
Conceptual underground section diagram looking north
15
Surface
Fresh air
raise
337-metre loading pocket
685-metre
loading pocket
Shaft
610-metre haulage level
305-metre haulage level
Diagram looking north (not to scale)
Ore and
waste
passes
Main F2 Gold Deposit
Completed development Drilling platforms
More than 13km of
U/G development
Conceptual ramp
to surface
Planned development
610-m level
Exploration
Drift
New PEA
(mid-to-late 2019):
Initial capital will
primarily comprise of
planned underground
development

Cochenour (G)
Red Lake Gold Mines (G)
Phoenix Gold Project (RMX)
D2 Structures
Red Lake, ON
N
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
Slate Bay
(RMX)
DMC
(RMX)
Adams Lake
(RMX)
East Bay
(RMX)
Prolific Red Lake Gold District:
Camp has produced more than 29 million ounces of gold
16
Rahill-Bonanza (PG/G)
H.G. Young (G)
Hasaga (PG)
McCuaig
(RMX)

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
Additional
info
Nov 2017 McCuaig (40%) 50 Golden Tag Rubicon C$0.7 M C$14,630/ha
Land
transaction
Mar 2017
Derlak (near
Madsen)
219 Orefinders Pure Gold C$1.2 M C$5,465/ha
Land
transaction
Dec 2015
Buffalo claims
(near Hasaga)
513 Pure Gold
Premier
Gold
~C$5.0 M C$9,747/ha
Land
transaction;
Pure Gold
gets 1.0%
NSR
Nov 2015 Springpole 32,448 Gold Canyon
First Mining
Gold
~C$56.2 M C$1,732/ha
Company
acquisition;
MRE
Jun 2014
Newman-
Madsen
>807
Sabina Gold
& Silver
Pure Gold ~C$2.8 M C$3,463/ha
Land
transaction
Mar 2014 Madsen 4,193
Claude
Resources
Pure Gold ~C$8.8 M C$2,087/ha
Asset
transaction
500 tpd mill,
MRE
Rubicon Red Lake Exploration Land Package
(excluding Phoenix Gold Project claim)
28,266 ha
Source: Company reports and Rubicon estimates 17
*Total consideration of cash and share
values at the time of acquisition

1000 m
244-metre level
exploration drift
Shaft
Island Zone
CARZ
Northern
Peninsula
F2 Gold Deposit
McFinleyCamp
F2 North
• 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
18
Close Proximity Targets
Potential LOM incremental feed of the Phoenix Gold Project
Long section looking north west
McFinley
Deep

Main F2 Gold
Deposit
Shaft
Historic
McFinley
Deposit
“B Zone”
Structure
“C Zone”
Structure
244-17-C02:
2.66 g/t Au over 0.5 m
244-17-C03:
244-17-C03:
Scale: 200 m
Drill hole
U/G development
Close Proximity Targets – McFinley
19
Historic McFinley Deposit (2002)1
Inferred: 66,801 oz Au
(303,006 tonnes grading 6.86 g/t Au)
1Not compiled according to NI 43-101

685-17-C04:
More than 550 m
deep from the
bottom of the
historic McFinley
Deposit mineral
resource
Scale: 200 m
Drill hole
U/G development
122-metre
level
183-metre
level
244-metre
level
305-metre
level
610-metre
level
685-metre
level
Main F2
Gold
Deposit
Shaft
Close Proximity Targets – McFinley Deep
Historic McFinley Deposit (2002)
Inferred: 66,801 oz Au
(303,006 tonnes grading 6.86 g/t Au)
• Drilling intersected gold-
bearing 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)
Isometric view looking northwest
20

Close Proximity Targets
Northern Peninsula, CARZ & Island Zone
21
• 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
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: 24.17 g/t Au over 2.00 m
• PR-15-11: 4.88 g/t Au over 10.50 m (incl. 6.43 g/t Au over 7.00 m)
• PR-15-19: 8.43 g/t Au over 1.05 m
• PR-15-06: 10.77 g/t Au over 2.65 m
• PR-15-09: 7.84 g/t Au over 1.50 m
Plan view
F2 North

Red Lake Regional Properties
Highly-prospective exploration targets
22
• Several highly-prospective
grassroots exploration targets
• 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
3# Sidace
1# McCuaig
2# East Bay
4# Slate Bay

Key Takeaways to the Rubicon Story
Advanced exploration. Red Lake. High-grade gold potential
23
• Sunk Capital: Mine substantially built and permitted in safe and friendly
jurisdiction
• Positive Block Model Reconciliation: Reconciliation exercise validates
and gives credibility to the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate
• Potential Mineral Resource Growth: 20,000 m of infill drilling
completed in 2018 and up to 20,000 m of step-out drilling planned for
2019 could potentially grow and enhance the mineral resources
• New PEA (at a minimum): Scheduled for mid-to-late 2019 for the
Project
• Short Timeline: Assuming a fully-funded positive feasibility-level study,
timeline to potential production would be roughly 12-18 months
• Vast Regional Land Package: Exploration work on McFinley, Close
Proximity targets, and regional targets in Red Lake, Ontario to
commence in 2019

Appendices
24

Conceptual Asset Values Mitigate Downside Risk
Assets carry conceptual values comparable to the Company’s market cap
25
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
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
Tax loss pools and end working capital:
Potential value of C$10-15 M
Current cash balance:
~C$16 M
Red Lake Properties
~C$30-50M
Hard assets and
equipment
~C$30M
Financial assets
~C$20-25M
Rubicon current market
capitalization: C$88.5 M
Long-term debt
(~C$15M)
Sprott Lending LT Debt:
C$12 M with 5% coupon (payment-in-kind)

2018 Mineral Resource Estimate2 Validated
Bulk sample results1 – stope by stope
Categories Bulk Sample Results
2018 Mineral Resource
Block Model
Difference
(∆)
Difference
(%)
#015 Test Stope
t 6,431 6,554 -123 -1.9%
g/t Au 3.83 4.30 -0.47 -10.9%
Oz 792 906 -114 -12.6%
External mining dilution1 4.4% 10.0%2 -5.6 -56.0%
Stope dimension (L x W x H) 16 m x 6 m x 22 m
#977 Test Stope
t 9,352 7,978 +1,374 +17.2%
g/t Au 3.94 4.58 -0.64 -13.9%
Oz 1,185 1,175 +10 +0.9%
External mining dilution1 10.0% 10.0%2 - -
#161 Test Stope
t 16,768 15,827 +940 +5.9%
g/t Au 5.91 4.83 +1.08 +22.4%
Oz 3,188 2,459 +729 +29.6%
Total bulk sample
t 32,551 30,360 +2,191 +7.2%
g/t Au 4.93 4.65 +0.28 +6.1%
Oz 5,165 4,539 +625 +13.8%
Low-grade material
t 7,620 N/A
g/t Au 2.06 N/A
oz 505 N/A

Structural Interpretation2
Conceptual diagram of F2 Gold Deposit local geology; Plan View
27
N
50 m
Shaft
West Limb
BasaltHanging Wall
Basalt
F2 Basalt
Historic McFinley
Deposit area
HiTi Basalt Units
Drill hole intersecting
Ultramafic Flow Units
Felsic Intrusive Units
Underground
development
HiTi Basalt Units
Remains open
along strike
Remains open
along strike
(2) Refer to endnote #2

Conceptual diagram of F2 Gold Deposit local geology
28
50 m
Historic
McFinley
Deposit area
Hanging
Wall Basalt
West Limb
Basalt
F2 Basalt
610-metre
level
305-metre level
HiTi Basalt Units
Drill hole intersecting Felsic
Intrusive Units
Underground
development
HiTi Basalt Units
• Three HiTi Basalt lenses:
Zone 1 (domain): F2 Basalt (horizontal widths of
20-30 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
• Structural Interpretation will continue to be refined,
enhanced, and supported with data and
observations collected from the 2018 Exploration
Program
Section view
looking north(2) Refer to endnote #2

Material Growth in 2018 Mineral Resources2
Increased tonnes, grade and ounces at all cut-offs and categories
Quantity (000’ tonnes) Grade (g/t Au) Contained Gold Ounces
2018 2016** Change 2018 2016** Change 2018 2016** Change
3.0 g/t Au
Measured (M) 188 0 N/A 6.80 0 N/A 41,000 0 N/A
Indicated (I) 1,186 719 65% 6.30 5.71 10.3% 240,000 132,000 81.8%
Total M+I 1,374 719 91% 6.37 5.71 11.6% 281,000 132,000 112.9%
Inferred 3,884 2,491 56% 6.00 5.18 15.8% 749,000 415,000 80.5%
3.5 g/t Au
Indicated (I) 964 601 60% 7.01 6.19 13% 217,000 120,000 81%
Total M+I 1,119 601 86% 7.08 6.19 14.4% 255,000 120,000 113%
Inferred 3,146 1,959 61% 6.64 5.71 16.3% 672,000 360,000 87%
4.0 g/t Au
Indicated (I) 779 492 58% 7.78 6.73 16% 195,000 106,000 84%
Total M+I 909 492 85% 7.86 6.73 17% 230,000 106,000 117%
Inferred 2,556 1,519 68% 7.31 6.28 16% 601,000 307,000 96%
Comparison between 2018* and 2016** Estimated Quantities
at Reported Cut-Off Grades
*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.

Comparison of structural interpretations of the F2 Gold Deposit
30
• Riedel vein system:
System of mineralized
quartz-actinolite veins that
appear to be primary
structural controls on gold
mineralization at the F2
Gold Deposit
• 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
Historical drill holes
HiTi Basalt Units
High-grade domain
D1 N-S structures
D2 E-W structures
Quartz-Breccia Zones
(higher grade)
Mineralized
Riedel veins
(orientations):
R’ veins
R veins
P veins
D2 dextral transpresion
2013 Structural
Interpretation
(1.1Moz Indicated;
2.2Moz Inferred)
2016 Structural
Interpretation
(0.1Moz Indicated;
0.3Moz Inferred)
2018 Structural
Interpretation
(0.28Moz M+I;
0.75Moz Inferred)
North
(mine-grid)
Plan Views

History of Mineral Resource Estimates
Historical estimates are not current and should no be relied upon
GEOEX – Amended4
(2011)
AMC5
(2011)
SRK6
(2013)
SRK7
(2016)
Grade
(g/t Au)
17.3 (inferred, capped) 14.5 (indicated)
17.0 (inferred)
8.5 (indicated)
9.3 (inferred)
6.7 (indicated)
6.3 (inferred)
Ounces 3.1 M (inferred) 0.5 M (indicated)
2.3 M (inferred)
1.1 M (indicated)
2.2 M (inferred)
0.1 M (indicated)
0.3 M (inferred)
Tonnes (t) 5.500 M (inferred) 1.028 M (indicated)
4.230 M (inferred)
4.120 M (indicated)
7.452 M (inferred)
0.492 M (indicated)
1.519 M (inferred)
Grade
interpolation
polygonal inverse distance
cubed
ordinary kriging ordinary kriging
Grade capping 10-5-2 oz
(311-155.5-62.2 g/t Au)
270 g/t Au 200 g/t Au (Main)
150 g/t (HW), 30 g/t (Ext)
10–120 g/t Au (HG domains)
5–45 g/t Au (LG domains)
Cut-off grade
(g/t Au)
5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Metres drilled at
F2 Gold Deposit
166,886 m 259,000 m +
2,000t bulk sample
355,611 m 450,175 m + trial stoping
Metrics from PEA
Grade to the mill
(g/t Au)
n/a 13.9 8.1 n/a
Average stope
width
n/a 2.0 m 7.8 m n/a
Overall dilution n/a 18% 44% n/a
31
(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.

1. For more information on the 2018 bulk sample reconciliation results, please refer to the news release on November 29, 2018, which is
available on our website at www.rubiconminerals.com.
2. For more information on the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate and other technical and scientific aspects of the Phoenix Gold Project,
including, without limitation, key assumptions, parameters and risks associated with the Phoenix Gold Project refer to the technical
report entitled “National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for the Rubicon Phoenix Gold Project” dated June 13, 2018, which are
available on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) or on the Company website (www.rubiconminerals.com)
3. For more information on the 2019 Exploration Program, please refer to the news release on January 8, 2019, which is available at
www.rubiconminerals.com.
4. 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 www.rubiconminerals.com and the
Technical Report dated April 11, 2011 available on under Rubicon’s profile in SEDAR at www.sedar.com. 2011 Estimates are no longer
current and should not be relied upon.
5. 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 www.rubiconminerals.com and the Technical Report dated August 11, 2011
available on under Rubicon’s profile in SEDAR at www.sedar.com. 2011 Estimates are no longer current and should not be relied
upon.
6. 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 www.rubiconminerals.com and the Amended & Restated Technical Report dated
February 28, 2014 available under Rubicon’s profile in SEDAR at www.sedar.com. 2013 Estimates are no longer current and should not
be relied upon.
7. 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 www.rubiconminerals.com and the Technical Report
filed on February 25, 2016 available under Rubicon’s profile at www.sedar.com. 2016 Estimates are no longer current and should not
be relied upon.
8. For more information on the 2018 infill drilling program, please refer to the news release on January 16, 2019, which is available on
our website at www.rubiconminerals.com.
32
Endnotes

For more information, please contact:
Allan Candelario, CFA
Director, Investor Relations and Corporate Development
416-766-2804
acandelario@rubiconminerals.com
33

Rubicon Minerals Updated January 2019 Corporate Presentation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Rubicon Minerals Updated January 2019 Corporate Presentation

Similar to Rubicon Minerals Updated January 2019 Corporate Presentation (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rubicon Minerals Updated January 2019 Corporate Presentation