RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Canada’s Next Potential High-Grade Gold Producer

Corporate Presentation December 2014

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Forward Looking Statements & 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. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding the anticipated composition and timeline of the underground development of the Phoenix Gold Project and potential initial production being achieved in mid-2015. 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 and programs 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 corporate 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. While no production decision has been made, there are inherent risks in proceeding with the development of the project and the company’s planning for the project and these include, gold price forecasts, capital cost overruns, availability of skilled labor, environmental compliance and restrictions, community matters, potential operating cost estimates, mining costs, development costs, underground mining and geotechnical risks, metal recoverability, milling costs, and related matters. Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this corporate presentation and Rubicon disclaims any obligation to update any forwardlooking 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

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Forward Looking Statements & Cautionary Notes Cautionary Note to U.S. Readers Regarding Estimates of 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 “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 Dan Labine, P.Eng., Vice President, Operations and Mark Ross, B.Sc., P.Geo., Chief Mine Geologist for Rubicon. Both are Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101.

3

The Rubicon Minerals Advantage

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

risk  Low ‣ Significantly funded project; substantial infrastructure built; ‣

Safe jurisdiction; fully permitted to 1,250 tpd.

 Well-advanced high-grade gold project ‣ ‣

Positive and conservative PEA; 8.1 g/t Au to the mill; Construction on schedule for projected initial production in mid-2015.

 Experienced management ‣ ‣

Proven production expertise in underground gold deposits; Over 100 years of operational experience.

4

Red Lake: Prolific Gold Mining District

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

N

More than 26 million Ounces of Gold Produced 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

East Bay (RMX)

Phoenix Gold Project (RMX)

Slate Bay (RMX)

F2 Structures DMC (RMX) Cochenour (G) Red Lake Gold Mines (G)

Red Lake, ON

Adams Lake (RMX) 5

Phoenix Gold Project Site

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Substantial Construction Completed • Head frame and hoist commissioned • Shaft completed to 730 m • Substantial U/G development

• • • •

Mill building and foundations completed Actiflo system commissioned Elution plant completed Substantial construction in progress

• Camp completed

• Tailings management facility near completion

• Surface roads, earth and civil works in place • Power line and substation on site

6

Phoenix Gold Project

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

On Schedule for Mid-2015 Projected Production

SAG and mill installation:

‣ ‣

Drive trains installed Trunion liners being placed

Knelson concentrators are installed 7

Phoenix Gold Project

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

On Schedule for Mid-2015 Projected Production

CIL tanks welded; top rings and platforms being installed

Crushed ore bin construction complete

Cyanide destruction installation

The paste plant conveyor installation

8

Phoenix Gold Project

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Underground Development Accelerating Improved underground development rates and costs:

‣ ‣ ‣

Replaced contractors with RMX team on 122183- and 244-metre levels RMX team 20-30% cost savings vs. contractors Evaluating Alimak longhole method to reduce underground development required

Scoop tram on the 244metre level

 Development rates have improved since changes have been implemented

Track drift development on the 122-metre level 9

Phoenix Gold Project Timeline US$75 million stream deal2; C$108 million1 equity financing

C$11 million1 flow-through financing

Stockpiling of mill feed

2014

• Mill construction • Underground development • Surface construction • Infill and definition drilling

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Projected gold production: Mid-2015

2015 Trial stoping Mill construction completion followed by testing and commissioning

1Total

proceeds net of fees agrees to deliver 6.3% of projected annual production from the Phoenix Gold Project to Royal Gold for up to 135,000 ounces of gold; stream decreases to 3.15% thereafter. Royal Gold cash purchase prices per ounce will be 25% of spot price at the time of delivery. 2Rubicon

10

Conservative, Positive EA

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Highlights1 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)

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

All-in sustaining

1 The

Conservative compared to prior mineral resource estimates

Conservative sustaining capex estimate of ~US$185/oz

Manageable throughput

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 11 corporate overhead costs or exploration costs.

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

LOM Projected Production & Cost Profile Potential Annual Production (000)

$1,600 $1,400

200 $1,200 $1,000

150

$800 100

$600 $400

50 $200 0

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Projected production

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

Cash Operating Cost Per Ounce (US$)

250

$-

Cash operating cost/ Recovered ounce

Approximately 2 months of planned stockpile before the start of potential milling 12

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Positive Economics in Various Gold Prices Current PEA NPV and IRR Sensitivity Analysis1,2 Gold Price (US$/oz)

After-tax NPV (C$millions)

Discount Rate

$1,100

$1,200

$1,300

$1,400

$1,500

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

13.0%

19.1%

24.9%

30.7%

36.6%

After-tax IRR

1C$/US$ 2Based

exchange rate of 1.05:1. Includes the impact of the gold streaming agreement. on January 1, 2015 estimates on a go-forward basis

13

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Strong Balance Sheet to Fund the Project Project capex spent, to-date October 1, 2011 to November 30, 2014

~C$299 million

Remaining capex to potential production Mill

~C$27 million

Underground development

~C$29 million

On-site construction

~C$19 million

Indirects & definition drilling

~C$10 million

Total remaining capex to potential production

~C$85 million1

(with contingency)

Corporate costs & working capital requirement

Cash required to projected production

Projected cash balance2

~C$30-40 million ~C$115-125 million

~C$154 million

1Company

estimate as of November 30, 2014. and cash equivalents estimate as of November 30, 2014. C$/USD$ exchange rate 1.13:1.00. Assumes full funding of Royal Gold streaming agreement and includes proceeds from the flow-through financing. 2Cash

14

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

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

N

Shaft

305-metre level

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate @ 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

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

Indicated mineral resources Inferred mineral resources 4.0 g/t Au cut off

600 m

15

Conservatism Applied to SRK Model

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

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% 16

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Conservatism Applied to the SRK Model Recovered Grade (g/t Au)

Recovered ounces

12,989,559 18,093,116 7,872,681 2,096,654 2,135,362 4,200,973 1,374,641 823,554 508,574 686,806 250,903 261,432 42,145 138,779 163,379 95,578 78,320 10,186 29,017 2,479 11,814 523 882 510 536 415

23.5 19.3 9.7 18.5 9.5 3.1 4.9 6.2 9.6 5.2 12.6 6.6 38.8 10.1 7.7 8.8 8.4 5.7 1.8 17.5 3.4 66.9 13.3 18.7 16.1 19.3

9,833,638 11,216,443 2,452,388 1,244,279 651,156 421,592 218,213 163,990 157,341 114,467 101,875 55,244 52,560 45,246 40,204 27,142 21,100 1,857 1,656 1,397 1,298 1,126 377 307 277 258

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

Tonnes

Phoenix Gold Project recovered grade less than half of the Red Lake District camp average

Red Lake Gold Mines (Goldcorp): Campbell, Dickenson/High Grade Zone Campbell (Placer Dome), 1949-2006 Madsen Cochenour-Willans McKenzie Red Lake Howey Hasaga Starrat Olsen Berens River Uchi Jason (Argosy) H.G. Young Sachigo River McMarmac Gold Eagle Jackson Manion Red Lake Gold Shore Hudson Patricia Buffalo Abino Lake Rowan Kostynuk Brothers Mount Jamie Bathurst Red Summit Sol d'Or

Red Lake Camp total Source: Ministry of Northern Development and Mines 1Projected recovered ounces

17

Project Opportunities

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Grade Upside Potential 7.3 g/t Au

8.1 g/t Au

8.9 g/t Au

(-10%)

(@ $1,300/oz Au)

(+10%)

After-tax NPV5%1,2 (C$millions)

$388.8

$537.0

$682.7

After-tax IRR

17.4%

24.9%

32.4%

Average Diluted Grade to the Mill

‣ ‣ ‣

Conservative parameters applied to the mineral resource block model 2011 bulk sample grades were higher than the SRK mineral resource modeled grades Significant dilution applied to the mining model, (15% external @ 0.68g/t, 26% internal at 1.81g/t)

1 Assuming 2vBased

$CDN/$USD exchange rate of 1.05:1.00. Includes the impact of the gold streaming agreement. on January 1, 2015 estimates on a go-forward basis

18

38,000 m Infill Drilling Program

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Continues to Yield Positive Results Goals: • Upgrade mineral resource above the 610m-level to 25.0 m spacing (or less) • 24-36 months of potential production to 12.0 m spacing (or less) following definition drilling



Results to-date confirm and improve continuity of mineralization



Economic intercepts appear in areas outside the planned stoping blocks; potential to expand resource in the upper levels

Infill drilling - long section

19

38,000 m Infill Drilling Program

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Continues to Yield Positive Results



Results to-date confirm and improve continuity of mineralization



Economic intercepts appear in areas outside the planned stoping blocks; potential to expand resource in the upper levels

20

Experienced Management

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

“Been there, Done that” Operations/Exploration Achievements Examples Development and start-up

Kidd Creek #2

Brought underground mines into production, as Mine General Manager (“MGM”)

Ken Snyder, Marlin

Significantly improved mine profitability and productivity as MGM

Red Lake, Pamour, Bell Creek, Golden Patricia

Discovery of new gold deposits

Grey Fox

Previous Financing Achievements Secured project financing in difficult market conditions

US$1.0 billion for Pueblo Viejo

Negotiated credit terms

Secured US$1.5 billion revolving credit facility

21

Attractive Positioning Amongst Peers

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Fully-funded, near-term projected gold production Estimated project funding gap1 vs. Estimated production start

Project Funding Gap1

(US$millions)

$1,000

RMX:

$750

asset with no LT debt  Single safe region, no security risk  Politically Project more than 2/3 built  Phoenix Lake known for high-grade,  Red deep, long-life mines

MAX

rds

PVG2 EOM

$500

CMM VIT R

$250

2013.5

MDW AUE

2014

2014.5

RMX GUY

TXG

TGM22015.5

2015

AKG

2016

BSX

PG

CNL

LYD

DNA2

ORE

$0

SBB

ROG 2016.5

2017

2017.5

2018

2018.5

Projected Gold Production Start Source: Company reports and analyst estimates 1Funding gap calculation = project pre-production capex less working capital less project capex spent to-date. Peer group list not exhaustive and does not include companies with project funding gap >US$1,000M 2Project financing arranged after June 30, 2014 via Stream, Equity or Debt

22

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Year-Over-Year De-Risking 17-Dec-13 RMX Price Marketcap (millions) Gold price ($CAD)1 2 LOM Avg. AISC (PEA) Initial capex remaining Cash balance

Drilling

First Nations

17-Dec-14

Notes

C$0.79

C$1.05

+33%

C$228.3

C$389.6

+71%

C$1,305/oz

C$1,389/oz

C$913/oz

+6% Majority of OPEX in C$

~C$210M

~C$85M

Project de-risking as construction and development progress

~C$85M

~C$154M3

None

~38,000 m infill drilling

Drilling results to-date confirm grade and continuity; Intercepts outside of planned stoping blocks

WFN lawsuit

WFN agreement

Removed lawsuit overhang

Raised >C$220M on stream, equity, flow-through, and lease financing deals

1

Source: Kitco

2

AISC 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. 3 Includes projected payment of US$12M from streaming deal

23

Exploration Potential:

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

East Bay Deformation zone East Bay Deformation Zone (EBDZ) N East Bay (RMX)

historical gold  Several occurrences in EBDZ





GAZ Zone (G/PG)

Footwall Zone (G/PG)

Ultramafic stratigraphy similar and along strike to F2 deposit

Island Zone (RMX)

Cross-cutting faulting structures could explain gold mineralization

Phoenix Gold Project (RMX) Abino (G) Chevron (G) McMarmac Mine

High-priority exploration targets East Bay claim (100% RMX) Strong structural deformation trends (containing ultramafic rocks) Gold occurrences Faulting structures

Cochenour (G)

H.G. Young Mine

McKenzie Mine Red Lake Gold Mines (G)

4.0 km

24

Near-Term Exploration Potential:

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

F2 Deposit Extension and Island Zone N

“Island Zone”

Cross-cutting fault

Select historical high-grade intercepts: • 70.1 g/t Au over 3.1 m • 28.7 g/t Au over 1.4 m • 22.2 g/t Au over 1.7 m • 15.8 g/t Au over 3.5 m • 15.4 g/t Au over 4.8 m • 15.0 g/t Au over 2.8 m • 14.0 g/t Au over 2.1 m

>15 g/t Au > 5 g/t Au

Phoenix Gold Project Shaft

Spring 2015 drilling program1: • Approx. 12,000 m drilling planned • Test geophysical IP and magnetic targets, as • • F2 Deposit

well as, interpreted ultramafic/mafic gold bearing stratigraphy Test extension of F2 Deposit to the north Follow-up on historical wide-spaced drill gold hits at the “Island Zone”

1Pending

approval

25

The Rubicon Minerals Advantage



Low Risk



Well-advanced high-grade gold project



Experienced management

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

26

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Appendices

27

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Capital Structure Shares outstanding

371 million

Options1

17 million

Warrants1

37 million

Fully diluted (assuming in-the-money)

425 million

Share price (NYSE-MKT/TSX)1

US$0.88/C$1.05

Market capitalization1

C$389.6 million

30-day average daily trading volume: TSX

0.73 million

NYSE

1.25 million

1 As

of December 17, 2014 Source: Bloomberg 28

Exploration Potential: East Bay

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

One of Many Regional Targets

 RMX claims adjacent to GAZ zone deposit (Goldcorp/Premier Gold)1

N

Historic drill hole highlights:1 22.9 g/t Au over 3.5m 17.7 g/t Au over 2.3m 11.1 g/t Au over 2.0m

Historic hole: 10.4 g/t Au over 1.0m

Target GAZ Zone deposit1:

 Ultramafic (also mafic

1.4Mt @ 8.0 g/t Au (inferred)

and felsic) stratigraphy dips into RMX claims Claim boundary

200 m

Ultramafic Stratigraphy Historic drill holes

____________ 1Note:

There is no guarantee that the results found on the GAZ zone deposit will be found on Rubicon’s adjacent claims. In no way is Rubicon suggesting or implying that the same results will be found.

East Bay claim area (100% Rubicon)

1Source:

GAZ Zone claim area (Goldcorp/Premier Gold)

Goldcorp/Premier Gold (2005)

29

Improved Mineral Resource Continuity:

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Conceptual Stope Shape – Cross Section facing north Mineral resource block: >5.0 g/t Au Mineral resource block: between 2.0-4.9 g/t Au

Stope shape Planned level development

61 m between levels

30

Project Opportunities

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Other Areas of Optimization Currently Being Studied Optimizing Strategy

Rationale

Potential Benefits

Utilize ventilation raise from 305-metre level to surface to lower equipment

Would allows the use of larger, more productive equipment underground

Potential to improve productivity and reduce operating cost per tonne

Drilling from the 610-metre level drill drift

To follow up on higher-grade intercepts at depth

Potential to add highgrade ounces to the mineral resource

Underground winze parallel to the shaft (long-term strategy)

An alternative to an inline shaft Potential to lower extension and upgrading the current sustaining capital in hoist and head frame. Shaft years 5 & 6 deepening will not commence until 2018

31

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Cash Operating and All-In-Sustaining Costs Cost Per Tonne

Cost Per Ounce

In-stope mining cost

C$27

C$113

Underground utilities and services

C$19

C$76

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

C$151

C$629

C$5

C$22

Gold stream1 (6.3%)

C$16

C$68

Sustaining capital cost

C$47

C$194

C$219 US$209

C$913 US$870

Cash operating cost components:

Material handling

Total cash operating cost Royalty1 (1.5%)

All-in sustaining cash cost2 1 Assumes PEA gold price assumption of $1,385/oz 2 FX conversion assumes PEA C$/$US exchange rate of 1.05/1.00

32

Phoenix Gold Project Schedule

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

On track for Mid-2015 Potential Production

Critical Path

Mid-2015

33

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

3-Year Projected Production Plan

N Year 1 Stoping Areas Year 2 Stoping Areas Year 3 Stoping Areas Planned underground development Existing underground development (including shaft)

305-metre Level

610-metre Level

730-metre level Phase 1 shaft bottom

300 m 34

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Mill Process Flow sheet @ 1,800 tpd

Source: SRK (PEA 2013) 35

Transverse Longhole (“LH”) Stoping

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

57% of LH tonnes will come from Transverse LH stoping

Source: SRK (PEA 2013) 36

Alimak Longhole Stoping

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

For Near-Vertical Stopes

37

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

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

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

38

Lode Gold Deposit Case History:

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

Campbell Mine (Red Lake, Ontario)

‣ Mineral reserves: 11.0 million oz (60-year mine life) Campbell Mine: Mineral Reserves and Gold Production1 Reserves (000 oz)

Production (000 oz)

1Note:

This chart is intended to help explain the nature of historical mineral deposits in the Red Lake area. In no way is Rubicon suggesting or implying that it will achieve the same results in respect of its reserves and production.

Source: Goldcorp (2006)

39

RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT

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

David W. Adamson, B.Sc. , M.Sc., Ph.D. Deputy Chairman

Daniel Labine, P.Eng. Vice President, Operations

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

Howard Bird, B.Sc., P.Geo. Vice President, Exploration

Peter Rowlandson, P.Eng. Director

Glenn Kumoi, LL.B. Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

Bruce A. Thomas, LL.B. Director Michael D. Winship, P.Eng. Director

Allan Candelario, CFA Director, 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

40