Rubicon Minerals December 2018 Corporate Presentation

TSX : RMX | OTCQX : RBYCF
Corporate Presentation
December 2018
Building Long-Term Shareholder Value

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

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 Statements Regarding Forward-Looking
Statements and Cautionary Notes
3

Corporate Vision
Three-pronged approach to build long-term shareholder value
4
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 Red Lake Properties land package.

Capital Structure and Shareholder Info
Strong balance sheet and institutional support
Balance Sheet and Capital Structure
Approximate cash balance: ~C$12.5 M
Nominal long-term debt outstanding
(December 31, 2020):
C$12.0 M
Lease liabilities C$2.5 M
Shares outstanding: 66,016,893
Options outstanding: 4,359,703
Institutional
Investors
70.72%
George
Ogilvie
0.72%
CPPIB
Credit
15.19%
Retail
8.24%
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 (November 30, 2018)**
RMX share price: C$1.28
Market capitalization: C$84.5 M
Avg. 30-day daily trading volume
(TSX & OTC markets)
61,532
*Numbers may not add due to rounding
**Source: TSX and OTC markets, as of November 30, 2018
Institutional shareholders include:
Mackenzie Financial Ninepoint (Sprott)
Donald Smith & Co. Greywolf
Sentry Investments Sun Valley Gold
Franklin Templeton U.S. Global
(475,940 shares)

Board and Management Team Strengthened
Expertise in geology, underground mining, finance and law
6
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.

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.
• Focus on structural geology: 3,500 m structural oriented drilling, 10,000 m historical core re-logged, and extensive
underground mapping shows discrepancies with the 2016 geological model.
• 2017 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
• 35,629 tonnes of test mining/bulk sampling in 2018: Test mining and bulk sampling activities
completed in October 2018; Mill operated at 70tph (or 1,540 tpd equivalent)
• Positive bulk sample reconciliation: Validates 2018 Mineral Resource estimate
• Updated Mineral Resource Estimate (H1/2019): Continue infill and step-out drilling to enhance the
quantities and classifications of the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate
• Deliver a PEA (at a minimum) in mid-2019:

TSX : RMX | OTCQX : RBYCF 8
Positive Bulk Sample Reconciliation4
Tonnes, grades, and ounces higher than modelled
Bulk sample results Block model3 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 dilution2 8.7% 10.0%2 -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
(1) 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 (2) Rubicon estimates,
assumes zero grade for unplanned (external) mining dilution; (3) Based on a 3.0 g/t Au cut-off
grade; (4) Please refer to end note #2 for further details.
2018 Bulk Sample Reconciliation Results1
(before external mining dilution)

Positive Bulk Sample Reconciliation4
Milling results improves Project economics
(4) Please refer to end note #2 for further details;
(5) Please refer to end note #1 for further details;
(6) Based on a 22-hour availability 9
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 tpd6
Mill recovery (%) 95.1%
Recovery from gravity
circuit (%) 43.2%
Approximate silver (Ag)
ounces recovered 525 oz Ag
2018 Mineral Resource Estimate5 @ 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 1,800 tpd
at current
configuration with
minor modifications
Translates to lower
processing costs in
future mining

2018 Mineral Resources Estimate 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 Estimate5 – April 30, 2018*
@ 3.0 g/t Au Cut-off
• Bulk sample results validates 2018
Mineral Resource Estimate and
geological model
• Golder (lead) & T. Maunula (peer
reviewer): Collaboration with Rubicon
since early 2017
• An updated mineral resource
estimate (H1/2019) will focus on
growing M+I, and will benefit from
more than 20,000 m of drilling
information from 2017 and 2018
• 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.
(5) Refer to endnote #1 for further details

2019 Exploration Program:
Updated Mineral Resource Estimate
Infill & step-out drilling (20,000m min.)
McFinley/Close Proximity/Regional
Exploration
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
additional drilling
Focusing on targets
at depth at the F2
Gold Deposit

2019 Exploration Program
Conceptual underground section diagram looking north
12
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)
Conveyer system
Ore and
waste
passes
Main F2 Gold Deposit
Completed development Drilling platforms
More than 13km of
U/G development
Conceptual ramp
to surface
>20,000 m of infill/step-out
drilling at the 610- and 685-
metre levels;
Exploration drift at 610-metre
level completed
Planned development

2018 Mineral Resources Estimate Validated5
Focused on upgrading categories and growing overall ounces
2018 Mineral Resource Block Model
Zone 2
(Hanging Wall and West Limb Basalts)
Section View Looking East
(Mine-Grid)
Exploration Target potential:
500-800kt @ 5.0-7.0 g/t Au
*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.
*
>20,000 m of infill/step-out
drilling to potentially expand
M+I resources and grow
Inferred

• 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
14
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
14
• 1,250 tpd mill (permitted)
• 91.5% recoveries during 2015
• Substantially permitted

Conceptual Asset Values Mitigate Downside Risk
Assets carry conceptual values comparable to the Company’s market cap
15
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$12.5 M
Red Lake Properties
~C$30-50M
Hard assets and
equipment
~C$30M
Financial assets
~C$20-25M
Rubicon current market
capitalization: C$84.5 M
Long-term debt
(~C$15M)
CPPIB Credit LT Debt:
C$12 M with 5% coupon (payment-in-kind)

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
Finance
~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
Exploration work budgeted for 2019
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
Exploration work in 2019
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
Potential LOM incremental feed of the Phoenix Gold Project
Historic McFinley Deposit (2002)
• 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 additional infill,
oriented drilling could potentially grow the 43-101 Mineral Resource
Estimate
• New PEA (at a minimum): Scheduled for mid-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

2018 Mineral Resource Estimate5 Validated
Bulk sample results4 – 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 Interpretation5
Conceptual diagram of F2 Gold Deposit local geology; Plan View
26
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
(5) Refer to endnote #1

Conceptual diagram of F2 Gold Deposit local geology
27
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(5) Refer to endnote #1

Material Growth in 2018 Mineral Resources5
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
29
• 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 – Amended7
(2011)
AMC8
(2011)
SRK9
(2013)
SRK10
(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
30
(7) Refer to endnote #3, (8) Refer to endnote #4, (9) Refer to endnote #5, (10) Refer to endnote #6
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.

Close Proximity Targets – McFinley Deep
Cross Sections of “B” and “C” Zone Structures
31
244-17-C02:
244-17-C03:
Historic McFinley
Deposit
122-metre level
183-metre level
244-metre level
305-metre level
122-metre level
183-metre level
244-metre level
305-metre level
244-17-C03:
Drill hole
U/G development
Potential gold-bearing structure
Historic McFinley Deposit (2002)1
1Not compiled according to NI 43-101

1. 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)
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
35
Endnotes

For more information, please contact:
Allan Candelario, CFA
Director, Investor Relations and Corporate Development
416-766-2804
acandelario@rubiconminerals.com
36

Rubicon Minerals December 2018 Corporate Presentation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Rubicon Minerals December 2018 Corporate Presentation

Similar to Rubicon Minerals December 2018 Corporate Presentation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (15)

Rubicon Minerals December 2018 Corporate Presentation