Investor Presentation – May 2023

N A S DAQ : P PTA
T SX : P P TA

Perpetua Resources
Responsible Mining.
Critical Resources.
Clean Future.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Information and statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are “forward-looking information” or “forward-looking statements” (collectively, “Forward-Looking Information”) within the meaning of
applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We use words such as “may,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “will,” “likely,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,”
“plan,” “forecast,” “outlook,” “project,” “estimate” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events to identify forward-looking statements or forward-looking information. Forward-Looking Information includes, but
is not limited to, information concerning the business of Perpetua Resources Corp. (the “Company”), the Stibnite Gold Project (the “Project”), including but not limited to statements with respect to results of the FS (as defined
below); disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action; next steps and courses of action including environmental
clean up actions by us and our contractors; our ability to comply with and obtain permits related to the Stibnite Gold Project; actions to be taken by the USFS, the State of Idaho and other government agencies and regulatory
bodies; timing of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), Draft Record of Decision, Final Record of Decision and other anticipated milestones related to the Project; expected funding from the Department of
Defense; predictions regarding improvements to water quality, water temperature, and fish habitats and other environmental conditions at the site, including with respect to process and timing of such improvements; reduction
of the Project footprint and the anticipated benefits and other effects thereof; our ability to successfully implement the Project and the occurrence of the expected benefits from the Project, including contributions to the
workforce, national security and clean energy transition; our and Ambri, Inc.’s (“Ambri”) ability to perform under the supply agreement described in this presentation, which agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
completion of the permitting process for the Project, commencement of commercial production of antimony, identification of one or more refiners to transform our antimony concentrate into antimony metal, and mutual
agreement on certain material terms, including volume and pricing; the anticipated economic, environmental and other benefits of the Project; the viability of the Project; development and operating costs in the event that a
production decision is made; success of exploration, development and environmental protection, closure and remediation activities; permitting time lines and requirements; requirements for additional capital; requirements for
additional water rights and the potential effect of proposed notices of environmental conditions relating to mineral claims; risks and opportunities associated with the Project; planned exploration and development of properties
and the results thereof; planned expenditures, production schedules and budgets and the execution thereof. Statements concerning mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates may also constitute Forward-Looking
Information to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that may be encountered if the Project is developed. In preparing the Forward-Looking Information herein, the Company has applied several material
assumptions, including, but not limited to, that the review process under the NEPA (including any joint review process involving the USFS, the State of Idaho and other agencies and regulatory bodies) as well as the FEIS will
proceed in a timely manner and as expected; that we will be able to obtain sufficient funding to finance permitting, pre-construction and construction of the Project and that all requisite information will be available in a timely
manner; the exchange rates for the U.S. and Canadian currencies will be consistent with the Company’s expectations; that the current exploration, development, environmental and other objectives concerning the Project can
be achieved and that its other corporate activities will proceed as expected; that the current price and demand for gold and antimony will be sustained or will improve; that general business and economic conditions will not
change in a materially adverse manner and that all necessary governmental approvals for planned activities on the Project will be obtained in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; that permitting and operations costs will
not materially increase; the continuity of the price of gold and other metals, economic and political conditions and operations; and the assumptions set out in the FS. Forward-Looking Information involves known and unknown
risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by
the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factors include, among others, the industry-wide risks and project-specific risks identified in the FS; operations and contractual obligations; changes in exploration
programs based upon results of exploration; changes in estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources; future prices of metals and minerals; availability of personnel and equipment; equipment failure; accidents, effects of
weather and other natural phenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under US federal and Idaho rules and regulations; impact of
environmental remediation requirements and the terms of existing and potential consent decrees on the Company’s planned exploration and development activities on the Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations;
delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; the Company’s dependence on one mineral project; the nature of mineral exploration and mining and the uncertain commercial viability; the Company’s lack of
operating revenues; governmental regulations and the ability to obtain necessary licenses and permits; risks related to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title to mineral projects; currency
fluctuations; changes in environmental laws and regulations and changes in the application of standards pursuant to existing laws and regulations; risks related to dependence on key personnel; COVID-19 risks to employee
health and safety and a slowdown or temporary suspension of operations in geographic locations impacted by an outbreak; estimates used in budgeting and financial statements proving to be incorrect; risks related to
unforeseen delays in the review process including availability of personnel from the USFS, State of Idaho and other stated, federal and local agencies and regulatory bodies (including, but not limited to, future US government
shutdowns); risks related to opposition to the Project; risks related to increased or unexpected costs in operations or the permitting process; risks that necessary financing will be unavailable when needed on acceptable terms,
or at all; risks related to the outcome of litigation and potential for delay of the Project, as well as those factors discussed in the Company’s public disclosure record. Although the Company has attempted to identify important
factors that could affect the Company and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in Forward-Looking Information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not
to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that Forward-Looking Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such
statements. Because it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors, this list cannot be considered a complete set of all potential risks or uncertainties. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on Forward-
Looking Information. For further information on these and other risks and uncertainties that may affect the Company’s business, see the “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations” sections of the Company’s filings with the SEC, are available at www.sec.gov and with the Canadian securities regulators, which are available at www.sedar.com. Except as required by law, the Company
expressly disclaims any obligation to update the Forward-Looking Information herein.

2
CAUTIONARY NOTE & TECHNICAL DISCLOSURE
The presentation has been prepared by Perpetua Resources management and does not represent a recommendation to buy or sell these securities. Investors should always consult their investment advisors prior
to making any investment decisions. All references to “dollars” or “$” shall mean United States dollars unless otherwise specified.
The material scientific and technical information in respect of the Stibnite Gold Project in this presentation, unless otherwise indicated, is based upon information contained in the technical report titled “Stibnite
Gold Project, Feasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho” dated effective December 22, 2020 and issued January 27, 2021 (the “FS” or “2020 Feasibility Study”). The 2020 Feasibility Study was
prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators that establishes
standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects. These standards differ from the mining property disclosure rules specified in Subpart 1300 of
Regulation S-K under the United States Securities Act of 1933 (“Subpart 1300”) promulgated by the SEC. Accordingly, information concerning mineral deposits from the 2020 Feasibility Study set forth herein
may not be comparable with information made public by companies that report in accordance with U.S. standards.
The Company has issued its inaugural Technical Report Summary (the “TRS”), dated as of December 31, 2021, and amended as of June 6, 2022, developed for the Stibnite Gold Project in accordance with the
mining property disclosure rules specified in Subpart 1300 promulgated by the SEC. The TRS summarizes, in accordance with the mining property disclosure rules specified in Subpart 1300, the FS, which was
completed under NI 43-101, with the following notable differences between the FS and the TRS:
• The TRS Mineral Resource estimates were developed based on a gold price of $1,500/oz versus the $1,250/oz gold price assumed for the FS. The change in gold price results from higher trailing average
gold prices at the date of preparation for the respective reports.
• The Measured Mineral Resources in the FS were reclassified to Indicated Mineral Resources in the TRS due to differences in Subpart 1300 versus NI 43-101 Mineral Resources classification guidelines.
• The Proven Mineral Reserves from the FS were reclassified as Probable Mineral Reserves for the TRS resulting from the reclassification of the Measured Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources due
to differences in Subpart 1300 versus NI 43-101 Mineral Resources classification guidelines.
• The TRS is classified as a Preliminary Feasibility level study whereas the FS was classified as a Feasibility level study. This change was driven by the Subpart 1300 requirement that a compliant Feasibility level
TRS include a capital cost contingency allowance no greater than 10%, whereas the initial capital cost estimate for the FS included a more conservative allowance at approximately 15%.
All other technical analyses, design information, capital and operating cost information, economic analyses, permitting and legal assumptions, conclusions and recommendations are consistent between the TRS
and the FS. Readers are encouraged to read the TRS and the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 3, 2021, as amended by the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed
with the SEC on June 8, 2022, which are available under the Company’s profile on EDGAR. Readers are also encouraged to read the FS, which is available on the Company’s website and under the Company’s
profile on SEDAR, for detailed information concerning the Project. See also “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
This presentation contains certain mineral reserve, production, costs, valuation, capitalization, trading data and similar information regarding certain other mineral projects and peer companies. Such data was
derived from publicly available reports by such companies and other trade and industry sources. While the company believes such sources to be reliable, the company has not independently verified such
information. Furthermore, information regarding mineral reserves, production and similar mineral project information for each company is based on estimates, assumptions and reporting standards applied to
available data by each company and their reserve engineers in their respective reports, which may differ materially from the estimates, assumptions and reporting standards applied by us, and therefore may not
be comparable among the companies presented. As a result, comparisons of such data made in this presentation, while considered reasonable at the time they are made, are subject to a variety of risks and
uncertainties which could cause actual events or results of each company to differ materially from those reflected and there can be no assurance that we will be able to achieve similar results at similar stages of
development.
Investors should be aware that the publication of the SDEIS and the permitting schedule, and the identification by the USFS of the Modified Mine Plan as the Preferred Alternative in the SDEIS, does not indicate
any commitments on the part of the USFS with regard to the content or timing of a final decision. In developing the FEIS, the next phase of the NEPA planning process, the USFS may select various actions based
on the Modified Mine Plan or each of the alternatives analyzed in the SDEIS. Furthermore, the USFS is not bound by the permitting schedule and anticipated milestones may be delayed materially or not be
satisfied.
3
WHY PERPETUA RESOURCES?
✓ Redeveloping one of largest, highest grade and
lowest cost gold projects in the U.S.*
✓ Superior project economics with ~15 year
reserve life and <3 year payback period *
✓ Establishing a national strategic asset with a
critical mineral essential for national defense and
the clean energy transition
✓ Located in stable mining jurisdiction with Idaho
community and political support
✓ Sustainable approach to restoring the
environment, improving a legacy, and creating
value for all stakeholders
✓ Attractive valuation with significant near-term
catalysts
*Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (“FS”) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the
assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and 4
Technical Disclosure” at the beginning of this presentation.
 THE STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
Our goal is to transform an area abandoned after 100 years of mining activity
into a national strategic asset for critical mineral and gold production through
responsible mining and a sustainable approach to restore the environment for
the benefit of all stakeholders.

5
LARGEST INDEPENDENT U.S. GOLD RESERVE 1

Independent Gold Project Mineral Reserves1

2
Perpetua (Stibnite) 4.8
Castle Mountain 4.2
Marigold 2.8
Haile 2.5
Round Mountain 2.2
DeLamar 1.8
South Railroad 1.6
Florida Canyon 0.9
Wharf 0.9
Hasbrouck 0.8
Bald Mountain 0.6
Mesquite 0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
2022 Year-End Mineral Reserves - Gold (Moz)

Source: Latest available company materials as of April 21, 2023

1. Independent refers to gold projects as not owned by Barrick or Newmont; Independent projects shown are from the lower 48 states in the U.S.
2. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation. 6
HIGH-GRADE, OPEN PIT GOLD DEPOSIT
Independent Open Pit Gold Deposits1
2
Perpetua (Stibnite) Yrs 1-4 2.2
Haile 1.7
2
Perpetua (Stibnite) LoM 1.4
Wharf 0.9
South Railroad 0.8
Round Mountain 0.7
Hasbrouck 0.6
Castle Mountain 0.5
Bald Mountain 0.5
Mesquite 0.5
Marigold 0.5
DeLamar 0.5
Florida Canyon 0.3

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

2022 Year-End Mineral Reserves - Gold Grade (g/t)

Source: Latest available company materials as of April 21, 2023

1. Independent refers to gold projects as not owned by Barrick or Newmont; Independent projects shown are from the lower 48 states in the U.S.
2. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation. 7
POISED TO BE ONE OF LARGEST U.S. GOLD MINES
Independent Projects and Producing Gold Mines1
Perpetua (Stibnite) Yrs 1-4 3 463
3
Perpetua (Stibnite) LoM 297
Round Mountain 226
Bald Mountain 214
Marigold 195
Haile 176
South Railroad* 124
Mesquite 124
DeLamar* 110
Wharf 80
Hasbrouck* 70
Florida Canyon 49
Castle Mountain 23 *Comparable projects not yet in production

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

2022 Annual Gold Production2 (koz)
Source: Latest available company materials as of April 21, 2023
1. Independent refers to gold projects as not owned by Barrick or Newmont; Independent projects shown are from the lower 48 states in the U.S.
2. 2022 annual gold production for the peer group producing mines; future life-of-mine average annual production for the South Railroad, DeLamar, and Hasbrouck projects based on the most recent technical studies available; Perpetua
(Stibnite) is based on estimated future production from the 2020 Feasibility Study.
3. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation. 8
 LOWEST QUARTILE ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTS 1

Among lowest cost North American developers… …and lowest cost relative to senior producers
3 3
Perpetua (Stibnite) Yrs 1-4 $438 Perpetua (Stibnite) Yrs 1-4 $438
3
Perpetua (Stibnite) LoM $636 3
Perpetua (Stibnite) LoM $636
Skeena (Eskay Creek) $652

Novagold (Donlin) $692 Agnico Eagle $1,090

Ascot (Premier) $769 Newmont $1,211

Artemis (Blackwater) $850
Barrick $1,222
Integra (Delamar) $955

Marathon (Valentine) $1,046 Kinross $1,271

$0 $300 $600 $900 $1,200 $0 $300 $600 $900 $1,200 $1,500

North American Gold Developer All-in Sustaining Costs ($/oz)1,2 North American Senior Gold Producer All-in Sustaining Costs ($/oz)1,2

Valuable antimony by-product credit of $70/oz over life of mine3

1. All-in Sustaining Cost (“AISC”) is a non-GAAP measure. See “Non-GAAP measures” at the end of this presentation.
2. North American gold developer project all-in sustaining costs are based on the most recent available technical reports. North American senior gold producer all-in sustaining costs represent FY 2022 actuals from company reports and filings.
3. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation. Antimony by-product credit is calculated using antimony price of $3.50/lb.
9
SIGNIFICANT LEVERAGE TO HIGHER GOLD PRICES
TRADING AT DEEP DISCOUNT TO PROJECT NET PRESENT VALUE 1

$2,350 $4,603
$2,943
Gold Price (US$/oz)

$2,100 $3,815
$2,404

$1,850 $3,026
$1,864

$1,600 $2,232 NPV at 0%

$1,320
NPV at 5%

$1,350 $1,434
$771

Perpetua Mkt Cap2 $307 Current Mkt Cap2 Only 16% of NPV2 (5%) at $1,850/oz Gold Price

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000

After Tax Net Present Value1 ($M)
1. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation.
2. Perpetua Resources market cap based on fully diluted market cap using closing price as of April 21, 2023 (US$4.62 share price and fully diluted shares of 66 million) 10
ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL STRATEGIC ASSET
ANTIMONY - IT’S CRITICAL
✓ Essential to economic and national security USES FOR ANTIMONY
✓ U.S. has no domestic mined production
✓ Clean energy & national defense applications
✓ China & Russia dominate the world supply (>70%)
Energy

World Antimony 2022 Production (USGS)

Turkey 1.2% Other
Bolivia 2.3% 2%
Burma 3.6%
Australia 3.6% CRITICAL
Flame Ceramics
Retardants
MINERAL
& Glass
ANTIMONY

Tajikistan
15.5%
China
54.5% National
Russia Security &
18.2% Defense

Other countries that produce less than 1% of global supply:

Mexico, Iran, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Guatemala, Pakistan, Canada 11
 EXPECTED TO AVERAGE ~35% OF U.S. DEMAND1,2
Stibnite Gold Project Recovered Antimony2
60,000,000

50,000,000 2022 U.S. Annual Consumption1

40,000,000
Antimony (lbs)

51%
30,000,000 44%
33% 34%
20,000,000
21%
15%
10,000,000

0
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

Stibnite Gold Project - Year of Operation

Perpetua Resources plans to re-establish domestic antimony production, protecting America’s future
1. Source: 2023 USGS Antimony commodity summary
2. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation. 12
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT (DPA) AWARD
Critical minerals award of up to $24.8 million to advance construction readiness and permitting

✓Up to $24.8 million to complete environmental and engineering studies necessary to

obtain a Final EIS, Final Record of Decision and other ancillary permits

✓Funding allows Perpetua to advance the construction readiness of the Stibnite Gold
Project while the company continues through permitting

✓The investment is essential to ensure the timely development of a domestic source of

antimony trisulfide

✓Site provided 90% of U.S. antimony supplies during World War II and the Korean War
and today the project holds an antimony resource of over 200 million pounds
A processing technique for
✓First critical minerals award using Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations funds to antimony flotation was pioneered at
Stibnite in the early 1900s.
secure an American source of antimony for missiles and munitions

“This action reinforces the Administration’s goals to increase the resilience of our critical mineral supply chains while deterring adversarial aggression.”
- Halimah Najieb-Locke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Resilience

13
PERPETUA TO POWER AMBRI’S LOW-COST BATTERY
Agreement to supply only responsible & domestically mined source of antimony for stationary, long
duration, daily cycle energy storage enabling the transition to cleaner energy
SUPPLY AGREEMENT 1:
• Current commitment of Perpetua’s antimony can power
over 13 GWh of energy storage or >8x the total additions
to entire U.S. energy storage market in 2020
• Based on standard commercial terms with options for
fixed pricing and higher volumes
• Partnering with Ambri to identify opportunities to reduce
carbon emissions in operations through renewable energy
combined with battery storage

Ambri secured $144M from Reliance Industries, Paulson &

Co., Bill Gates and others to accelerate growth and recently Source: https://ambri.com/
announced a tripling of its manufacturing capacity in the U.S.

Redefining how modern mining companies can be part of climate change solutions
1. Subject to completion of the permitting process for the Project, commencement of commercial production of antimony, identification of one or more refiners to transform our antimony concentrate into antimony metal, and mutual
agreement on certain material terms, including volume and pricing. For additional information regarding the risks and uncertainties surrounding our supply agreement with Ambri, see “Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of
this presentation.
14
 RESTORING AN ABANDONED BROWNFIELDS SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS FUNDED THROUGH MINE DEVELOPMENT

SEDIMENTATION METAL LEACHING BLOCKED FISH MIGRATION

Early repair of the largest Pick up, reprocess, reuse and Re-establish fish migration and provide
source of sedimentation safely store 10.5M tons of temporary and permanent river
tailings and spent ore restoration

15
PATH FORWARD FOR THE STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT1
U.S. Forest Service identified Perpetua’s Proposed Plan as Preferred Alternative2 in Supplemental EIS

Mid 2024 2027

Construction Commercial operations
Mid 2024
Decision and ongoing restoration
Ancillary permits and
Project Financing
March 2024
Final Record of Decision

December 2023
Final EIS and Draft Record of
Decision

October 2022
Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) identified
Preferred Alternative

Preferred Alternative a major milestone providing clarity for remainder of the NEPA process
1 See forward-looking statements at the beginning of this presentation. Based on USFS schedule published in March 2023.
2 Under NEPA, a “Preferred Alternative” is identified by a Federal Agency in a DEIS to let the public know which action the agency is leaning toward selecting as final. 16
GAINING MOMENTUM WITH NEAR-TERM CATALYSTS

Recent Accomplishments: Anticipated Milestones1:

✓ Signed Antimony agreement with Ambri (Aug 2021) ❑ Final Environmental Impact Statement & Draft
Record of Decision (Dec 2023)2
✓ Launched Sustainability Roadmap (Apr 2022)
❑ Final Record of Decision (Mar 2024)2
✓ Awarded Department of Defense SBIR funding (Sep 2022)
❑ Ancillary permits & financing (mid 2024)
✓ Completed initial legacy cleanup activities (Oct 2022)
❑ Construction, legacy restoration (summer 2024)
✓ Supplemental Draft EIS published (Oct 2022)
❑ Commercial operations, ongoing restoration (2027)
✓ Awarded up to $24.8 million under Defense Production Act
(Dec 2022)
✓ Supplemental Draft EIS comment period closed (Jan 2023)

1 See forward-looking statements at the beginning of this presentation

2 Based on USFS schedule published in March 2023. 17
VALUATION EXPECTED TO RE-RATE ONCE PERMITTED
100%

Pre-Permitting Permitted
Market Cap As % of Spot NAV3,4

67%
63%

50%
44% 42%
37%

16%
9%

0%
1,2
Integra Perpetua Skeena Artemis Marathon NovaGold Ascot

1. Perpetua Resources market cap based on fully diluted market cap using closing price as of April 21, 2023 (US$4.62 share price and fully diluted shares of 66 million)
2. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications
contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this presentation.
3. NAV’s based on after-tax NPV (5% discount rate) based on last available NAV within $1,850/oz gold price.
4. Market Caps based on April 21, 2023 closing stock prices.
18
EXPOSURE TO GOLD AT ATTRACTIVE ENTRY PRICE
Leading Gold Reserves per share… …at an attractive price per gold Reserve ounce

Perpetua1 73 Ascot $229

NovaGold 49 Skeena $191

Artemis 34 NovaGold $113

Skeena 34 Artemis $100

Integra 21 Marathon $98

1
Marathon 7 Perpetua $64

Ascot 2 Integra $30

- 20 40 60 80 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

North American Peers’ Gold P&P Reserves per North American Peers’ Price (US$) per Gold P&P
1,000 shares2,3 Reserve ounce2,3

1. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation.
2. North American peer Proven & Probable (P&P) gold Reserve ounces are based on the most recent available technical reports and company materials.
3. Per share metrics are presented on a fully diluted basis using publicly available information; market caps as of April 21, 2023 close prices, converted to U.S. dollars using the Bank of Canada exchange rate as of April 21, 2023. 19
A UNIQUE AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY
✓ Redeveloping one of largest, highest grade and
lowest cost gold projects in the U.S.*
✓ Superior project economics with ~15 year
reserve life and <3 year payback period *
✓ Establishing a national strategic asset with a
critical mineral essential for national defense
and the clean energy transition
✓ Located in stable mining jurisdiction with Idaho
community and political support
✓ Sustainable approach to restoring the
environment, improving a legacy, and creating
value for all stakeholders
✓ Attractive valuation with significant near-term
catalysts
*Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the begi nning of this
presentation. 20
Appendix
DIVERSE, EXPERIENCED LEADERSHIP TEAM
EXECUTIVE TEAM

Laurel Sayer Jessica Largent Mckinsey Lyon Alan Haslam Michael Bogert Tanya Nelson
Board Director & CEO Chief Financial Officer VP, External Affairs VP, Permitting General Counsel VP, Human Resources

CORPORATE BOARD

Marcelo Kim Bob Dean David Deisley Jeff Malmen Chris Chris Robison Alex Sternhell Laura Dove
Chairman Director Director Director Papagianis Director Director Director
Paulson & Co Former Allen & Former NovaGold, Idaho Power, Former Director Former Newmont, Sternhell Group, Former Ford Motor
Company Goldcorp & Barrick Chief of Staff Paulson & Co Rio Tinto Minerals Democrat Dpty. Staff Company, Secretary
Governor Otter & Kennecott Director US Senate for the Majority of the
Utah Copper Cm. Banking U.S. Senate
22
IDAHO: A PREMIER IDAHO
Lucky Friday Mine

MINING JURISDICTION Golden Chest Mine

Idaho Strategic Resources
Coeur d’Alene Hecla Mining

Galena Complex
Sunshine Mine Americas Gold and Silver
Sunshine Silver
Stibnite Gold
• Top 10 Mining Jurisdiction in the World* Project (Au-Sb)
Perpetua Resources Beartrack-Arnett Project
Revival Gold
• Well-defined Permitting Process McCall Idaho Cobalt Operations
Jervois
Cascade Iron Creek
• Substantial Community and Political Support Thompson Creek Mine Electra
Centerra Gold
BOISE
• Low Geopolitical Risk DeLamar Project
Integra Resources
Phosphate District
Itafos, Simplot, Bayer

• Strong infrastructure, low-cost power, talented

NEVADA
& experienced workforce Twin Creeks
Barrick/Newmont
Turquoise Ridge Goldstrike Mine
Barrick/Newmont Barrick/Newmont

Cortez
* Source: Fraser institute Survey 2022
Barrick/Newmont UTAH
23
CHANGING THE FACE OF MINING
STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL &
GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES BUILT INTO
67% 2020 CORE BUSINESS PLANS
of executive Laurel Sayer named CEO ✓ Community Agreement signed in 2018
management are of Perpetua Resources ✓ Adopted ESG policy in 2019
female Corp & Perpetua
Resources Idaho
✓ Annual Sustainability Reporting
✓ 60k+ Trees Planted
✓ 104+ Months No Reportable Spills
Cindy Kneen, Camp Supervisor Laurel Sayer, CEO ✓ Dark Skies commitments
✓ Launched Sustainability Roadmap in 2022
✓ Installed solar power to reduce current
reliance on fuel

43% 60%
of employees are
female of Perpetua Resources Idaho, Inc
board members
are female

Belinda Provancher, Community Relations April Whitney, Perpetua Resources

Manager Idaho Board Member

Note: Numbers reflect Perpetua Resources Idaho, Inc. staff and board members as of January 2022

24
IMPROVING A LEGACY
P L A N D ES I G N E D W I T H P O ST M I N I N G
R ESTO R AT I O N G OA L S I N M I N D,
I N C LU D I N G W I L D L I F E , F I S H E R I ES &
D I S P E RS E D R EC R EAT I O N
• Create a self-sustaining natural environment
• Support healthy fish and wildlife population
• Significant concurrent reclamation & restoration
• Revegetation, reforestation & wetland mitigation
• Address historical impacts from legacy mining
• 10+ year post-operations closure period
• 25 years of water treatment estimated
Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections
should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to
the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at
the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary
Note and Technical Disclosure” at the beginning of this presentation. See the section titled
“Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this presentation.

25
ANTIMONY-BASED LIQUID METAL BATTERIES
ABOUT AMBRI:
• Combining technological innovation with
commercial application to store energy longer, in
a scalable way that will change the way power
grids operate
• Low-cost battery comprised of a liquid calcium
alloy anode, a molten salt electrolyte and a
cathode comprised of solid particles of antimony
• Ambri secured $144M in capital led by Reliance
New Energy Solar (Reliance Industries), Paulson
& Co., Bill Gates, Fortistar, Goehring &
Rozencwajg and Japan Energy Fund to accelerate
growth and build domestic manufacturing facility
• Reliance appointed JV Partner in India as part of
broader plans to invest $10B billion in Green
Energy Giga Complex
Source: https://ambri.com/

26
PERMITTING – NEXT STEPS
NOA for
DEIS In Federal
EIS Project Alternatives &
Register
Submittal Administrative Pre-work Initiation & Environmental Prepare
of PRO Approval & Planning Public Scoping Analysis Draft EIS

DEIS Comment
Period

We are
here Engineering & Design

NOA for FEIS & Draft

ROD
Publish ROD in Federal Register SDEIS Review and Respond to
Project Dependent
Final ROD Public Objection Period, Published Comments on DEIS
Approved Permits
Objection Resolution
Construction

Ancillary Permits (Additional state and federal permits and approvals required)

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement NOA: Notice of Availability

DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement PRO: Plan of Restoration and Operations
FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement ROD: Record of Decision 27
 1
NEPA SCOPE NARROWED FOLLOWING SDEIS
2022 Supplemental Preferred Alternative
2020 DEIS Identified
DEIS

Modified Mine Plan – Burntlog Route Modified Mine Plan – Burntlog Route
Plan of Restoration and Operations (PRO)
Alternative Alternative

Modified Mine Plan - Johnson Creek 2022 SDEIS Preferred Alternative:

Modified PRO
Route Alternative
✓ Incorporates water management &
closure activities reducing long-
Alternative Tailings Location No Action Alternative term water treatment duration.
✓ Incorporates measures to manage
stream temperatures.
Johnson Creek Access Route ✓ Reduces potential for impacts
associated with access,
transportation, and hazardous
No Action Alternative materials on Johnson Creek and
the East Fork SFSR.

Perpetua’s Proposed Plan identified as Preferred Alternative in Supplemental Draft EIS

1 Under NEPA, a “Preferred Alternative” is identified by a Federal Agency in a DEIS to let the public know which action the agency is leaning toward selecting as final. 28
MINERAL RESOURCES & RESERVES 1

Proven & Probable Mineral Reserves2: Measured & Indicated Mineral Resources3:
4.8 Mozs Gold @1.43 g/t 6.0 Mozs Gold @1.42g/t
148 Mlbs antimony at 0.06% contained in 104 Mt 206 Mlbs antimony at 0.07% contained in 132 Mt
3.500

Gold M&I Mineral Resource

Gold (thousands ounces)

Antimony (thousands lbs)

120,000
3,000 Gold P&P Mineral Reserve
Antimony M&I Mineral Resource
100,000
2,500 Antimony P&P Mineral Reserve

90,000
2,000

1,500 80,000

70,000
1,000

500 60,000

Yellow Pine Hangar Flats West End Historical Tailings

1 Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications
contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the beginning of this presentation. The Mineral Reserves
are contained within the Mineral Resources.
2 Mineral Reserves were calculated using an Au price of $1600/oz and Sb price of $3.50/lb and variable cut off grade of 0.39-0.49 g/t Au. The Proven Mineral Reserves from the 2020 FS were reclassified as Probable Mineral Reserves for the TRS.
3 Mineral Resources were calculated using a $1250/oz Au price and sulfide cut off grade of 0.45 g/t Au and oxide COG of 0.4 g/t Au based on the 2020 Feasibility Study. Based on a gold price of $1,500/oz in the TRS, Mineral Resources

increased to 6.3Mozs @1.33 g/t using a sulfide cut off grade of 0.40 g/t Au and oxide cut off grade of 0.35 g/ tAu. The Measured Mineral Resources from the 2020 FS were reclassified to Indicated Mineral Resources in the TRS due to differen ces 29
in the S-K 1300 versus NI 43-101 Mineral Resources classification guidelines.
EXPLORATION UPSIDE*
EXPANSIVE LAND PACKAGE
EXISTING DEPOSITS:
• Northeast of Yellow Pine Deposit
• Below Hangar Flats pit & Old Defense
Minerals Exploration Act (DMEA) working area
• West End along strike and at depth
P R I O R I T Y E X P LO R AT I O N TA RG E T S :
• High grade targets (Garnet, Scout, Upper
Midnight)
• Bulk tonnage targets (Cinnamid-Ridgetop,
Saddle-Fern, Rabbit)
• Undefined airborne targets (Mule, Salt &
Pepper, Blow-out)
P I P E L I N E O F A N T I M O N Y - R I C H TA RG E T S
*Some of the prospects are conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration to define a
mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a
mineral resource. See the section titled “Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this
presentation.

30
ORE PROCESSING
FLOW SHEET Crushing, SAG
Dore metallurgical recoveries & Ball Milling

• Gold at 68% - 91% (88.9% average)

• Silver at 23.2% Average High Sb Antimony
Stibnite Flotation
Sulfide Concentrate
Antimony concentrate metallurgical recoveries 1, 2
• Antimony at 84% - 91% (89.5% average) Low Sb
Sulfide Pyrite Flotation
• Gold at 1% - 2%
• Silver at 59% -65%
High-grade antimony concentrate (Sb 55-65%) Oxide
Transitional POX
• Low levels of impurities = no penalties Residuals
Gold and silver likely by-product payables in Sb concentrates
Potential Antimony processing options include
• Conventional pyrometallurgical (smelting and roasting)
Gold Leach
• Hydrometallurgical (solvent extraction)
• Bench and pilot scale testing indicates both options are
viable processes for Sb concentrates. Electrowinning Dore

Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or
1 reporting LOM averages by ore type relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
2 excluding historical tailings
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of
differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the beginning of this presentation
31
FEASIBILITY STUDY – HIGHLIGHTS1
Early Production Life-of-Mine Notes:
Component 1. In this presentation, “M” =
Years 1-4 Years 1-15 million, “k” = thousand, all
Total Recovered Gold 1,853 koz 4,238 koz amounts in US$, gold and silver
reported in troy ounces (“oz”)
Total Recovered Antimony 74 Mlbs 115 Mlbs 2. Cash costs, All-in Sustaining
Average Annual Recovered Gold 463 koz/yr 297 koz/yr Costs, EBITDA and After Tax Free
2 Cash Flow are non-GAAP
Cash Costs Net of By-Product Credits $328/koz $538/koz measures. See “Non-GAAP
2 measures” at the end of this
All-in Sustaining Costs Net of By-Product Credits $438/koz $636/koz presentation.
Initial Capital including Contingency $1,263 million 3. The FS assumes 100% equity
financing of the Project.
$1,600/oz gold - $20/oz silver - $3.50/lb antimony
After-Tax Net Present Value at 5% Discount Rate $1,320 million
2
Annual Average EBITDA $566 million $292 million
2
Annual Average After Tax Free Cash Flow $500 million $242 million
After Tax Internal Rate of Return 22.3%
After Tax Payback Period 2.9 years Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS)
which is intended to be read as a whole and
$1,850/oz gold - $24/oz silver - $3.50/lb antimony sections should not be read or relied upon
out of context. The information in this
After-Tax Net Present Value at 5% Discount Rate $1,864 million presentation is subject to the assumptions,
2 exclusions and qualifications contained in
Annual Average EBITDA $678 million $360 million the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the
2 end of this presentation. For a summary of
Annual Average After Tax Free Cash Flow $584 million $295 million differences between the FS and TRS, see
“Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure”
After Tax Internal Rate of Return 27.7% at the beginning of this presentation.
After Tax Payback Period 2.5 years
32
FEASIBILITY STUDY - CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Initial Sustaining Closure Total Notes:
Area Detail CAPEX CAPEX CAPEX CAPEX 1. Initial mining CAPEX includes
environmental remediation costs.
(M $) (M $) (M $) (2) (M $)
2. Closure and mitigation assume
self-performed costs, which will
Mine Costs (1) 84 119 - 203 differ for those assumed for
financial assurance calculations
Processing Plant 433 49 - 483 required by regulators. Costs
Direct Costs include stream and wetland
On-Site Infrastructure 191 84 - 275 restoration and reclamation costs.
3. Numbers have been rounded and
Off-Site Infrastructure 116 - - 116 may not sum correctly.

Indirect Costs 233 - - 233

Owner's Costs 38 - - 38
Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS)
Offsite Environmental Mitigation Costs 14 - - 14 which is intended to be read as a whole
and sections should not be read or relied
Onsite Mitigation, Monitoring and upon out of context. The information in
3 23 98 125 this presentation is subject to the
Closure Costs(2) assumptions, exclusions and qualifications
contained in the FS. See “Regulatory
Total CAPEX without Contingency(3) 1,113 275 98 1,487 Information” at the end of this
presentation. For a summary of differences
between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary
Contingency 150 20 1 171 Note and Technical Disclosure” at the
beginning of this presentation.
Total CAPEX with Contingency(3) 1,263 296 99 1,658

33
FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPERATING COST SUMMARY
Years 1-4 Life of Mine
Total Production Cost Item Notes:
($/t milled) ($/oz Au) ($/t milled) ($/oz Au)
1. Cash costs and All-in Sustaining
Mining 9.71 156 8.22 205 Costs are non-GAAP measures.
See “Non-GAAP measures” at the
Processing 13.13 211 12.76 318 end of this presentation.

G&A (including Water Treatment) 3.54 57 3.43 85 2. Defined as non-sustaining

reclamation and closure costs in
Cash Costs Before By-Product Credits 26.38 424 24.41 608 the post-operations period.
3. Initial Capital includes capitalized
By-Product Credits (5.99) (96) (2.81) (70) preproduction.

Cash Costs After of By-Product Credits 20.40 328 21.60 538

Royalties 1.69 27 1.09 27
Refining and Transportation 0.46 7 0.24 6 Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS)
which is intended to be read as a whole
Total Cash Costs1 22.54 362 22.94 571 and sections should not be read or relied
upon out of context. The information in
Sustaining CAPEX 4.64 75 2.83 70 this presentation is subject to the
assumptions, exclusions and
All-In Sustaining Costs1 27.23 438 25.54 636 qualifications contained in the FS. See
“Regulatory Information” at the end of
Reclamation and Closure2 - - 0.95 24 this presentation. For a summary of
differences between the FS and TRS, see
Initial (non-sustaining) CAPEX3 - - 11.65 290 “Cautionary Note and Technical
Disclosure” at the beginning of this
All-In Costs - - 38.14 950 presentation.

34
ANNUAL AFTER-TAX CASH FLOW (@ $1,850 GOLD PRICE) 1

1. Based on the 2020 Feasibility Study (FS) which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and
qualifications contained in the FS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. For a summary of differences between the FS and TRS, see “Cautionary Note and Technical Disclosure” at the beginning of this
presentation.
35
SUPPORTIVE SHAREHOLDER BASE
SHAREHOLDERS**
Loews Eidelman Virant
1.8%
CAPITAL STRUCTURE*
1.5%
RESEARCH COVERAGE
B Riley
❖ Issued & Outstanding 63.10 Million 4.0% ❖ B. Riley Financial – Lucas Pipes
Kopernik
8.3%
❖ Options 1.79 Million ❖ H.C. Wainwright – Heiko Ihle
Paulson
Sun Valley Gold 39.3%
❖ Share Units 1.36 Million 9.2% ❖ Cantor Fitzgerald – Mike Kozak

❖ Warrants 0.20 Million ❖ Roth Capital – Mike Niehuser

Other public
float
❖ Fully Diluted 66.45 Million 35.8% ❖ Hallgarten – Christopher Ecclestone

❖ Estimated Cash Balance*** ~$23 Million ❖ ACF – Renas Sidahmed

*Capital structure estimate as of March 28, 2023

**Based on most recent shareholder filings
***Cash balance as of December 31, 2022

36
REGULATORY INFORMATION
The FS was compiled by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation (“M3”) in accordance with NI 43-101 under the direction of independent qualified persons (as defined in NI 43-101) (“Independent QPs”).
Independent QPs for the FS include: Richard Zimmerman, SME-RM (onsite and offsite infrastructure, cost estimating and financial modeling) and Art Ibrado, P.E. (mineral processing) with M3; Garth Kirkham,
P.Geo. (mineral resources) with Kirkham Geosystems Ltd.; Christopher Martin, C.Eng. (metallurgy) with Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd.; Grenvil Dunn, C.Eng. (hydrometallurgy) with Hydromet WA (Pty) Ltd.; Chris
Roos, P.E. (mineral reserves) and Scott Rosenthal P.E. (mine planning) with Value Consulting, Inc.; and Peter Kowalewski, P.E. (tailings storage facility and closure) with Tierra Group International, Ltd.

The TRS was compiled by M3 in compliance with Subpart 1300 promulgated by the SEC under the direction of Independent Qualified Persons (as defined in Subpart 1300) (“QPs”). QPs for the TRS include:
Richard Zimmerman, SME-RM (onsite and offsite infrastructure, cost estimating, mineral processing, financial modeling) with M3; Garth Kirkham, P.Geo. (mineral resources) with Kirkham Geosystems Ltd.;
Christopher Martin, C.Eng. (metallurgy) with Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd.; Grenvil Dunn, C.Eng. (hydrometallurgy) with Hydromet WA (Pty) Ltd.; Scott Rosenthal P.E. (mine planning and mineral reserves) with
Value Consulting, Inc.; and Peter Kowalewski, P.E. (tailings storage facility and closure) with Tierra Group International, Ltd.

The material scientific and technical information in respect of the Project in this presentation, unless otherwise indicated, is based upon information contained in the FS, with notable differences between the FS
and the TRS identified. Readers are encouraged to read the TRS and the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 3, 2021, as amended by the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-
K/A filed with the SEC on June 8, 2022, which are available under the Company’s profile on EDGAR. Readers also are encouraged to read the FS, which is available under the Company’s profile on SEDAR and
on the Company’s website, for detailed information concerning the Project. All disclosure contained in this presentation regarding the mineral reserves and mineral resource estimates and economic analysis on
the property is fully qualified by the full disclosure contained in the FS and the TRS.

Information of a scientific or technical nature in this presentation has been approved by Christopher Dail, AIPG CPG #10596, Exploration Manager for Perpetua Resources Idaho, Inc. and a qualified person (as
defined in NI 43-101 and as defined in Subpart 1300).

All mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with CIM definitions, with notable differences to Subpart 1300 identified. Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell to
demonstrate potential for economic viability, as required under NI 43-101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral resource. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do
not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that
would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. It is reasonably expected that the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources.

The mineral resources and mineral reserves at the Stibnite Gold Project are contained within areas that have seen historic disturbance resulting from prior mining activities. In order for the Company to advance
its interests at the Stibnite Gold Project, the Project will be subject to a number of federal, state and local laws and regulations and will require permits to conduct its activities.

See also “Cautionary Note” at the beginning of this presentation.

OTHER
Certain monetary amounts, percentages and other figures included in this presentation have been subject to rounding adjustments. Certain other amounts that appear in this presentation may not sum due to
rounding.

04
37
NON-GAAP MEASURES
NON-GAAP MEASURES
To provide investors with additional information in connection with our results as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”), we disclose certain
projected non-GAAP financial measures. The projected non-GAAP financial measures include Cash Costs, EBITDA, All-in Sustaining Costs and After-Tax Free Cash Flow estimates and related calculations as
published in the Company’s 2020 Feasibility Study.

1. Cash Costs and All-in Sustaining Costs (AISC)

Cash Costs is a non-GAAP metric defined as the sum of cash operating costs (mining, processing, G&A), by-product credits, refining and transportation costs and royalties and is used to evaluate the
Company’s future operating performance and provide visibility into the economics of our future mining operations.

All-in Sustaining Costs (AISC) is a non-GAAP metric defined as the sum of cash costs (from above), sustaining capital costs and non-revenue-based taxes (i.e. property tax) and is used to evaluate the
Company’s future operating performance and the ability to generate cash flow from operations.

2. EBITDA
Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is a non-GAAP metric is generated from adding back taxes, interest, depreciation to net income and is used to evaluate the
Company’s future operating performance.

3. After-Tax Free Cash Flow (FCF)

After-Tax Free Cash Flow (FCF) is a non-GAAP metric and is defined as net cash provided from operating activities less capital expenditures and less taxes and is used to evaluate the Company’s future
operating performance and ability to generate excess cash flow but it does not entirely represent cash available for discretionary expenditures due to the fact that the measure does not deduct the payments
required for debt service and other items.

We believe the projected non-GAAP financial measures included in this presentation provide readers with additional meaningful comparisons between the Company’s 2020 Feasibility Study and its peer
companies. These projected non-GAAP financial measures are not historical measures of financial performance and are not presented in accordance with GAAP. They may exclude items that will be significant in
understanding and assessing our financial results. Therefore, these measures should not be considered in isolation or as an alternative or superior to GAAP measures. You should be aware that our presentation of
these measures may not be comparable to similarly-titled measures used by other companies. The projected non-GAAP measures included in this presentation cannot be reconciled to comparable GAAP
measures without unreasonable effort.

The non-GAAP financial measures included in this presentation are projections based on the 2020 Feasibility Study. They are forward-looking statements and remain subject to the risks and uncertainties set forth
in the section titled “Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this presentation.

See the 2020 Feasibility Study for additional information regarding the non-GAAP financial measures included in this presentation. The economic model described in the 2020 Feasibility Study is not a true cash
flow model as defined by financial accounting standards but rather a representation of Project economics at a level of detail appropriate for a feasibility study level of engineering and design.

38