march presentation web

March 2012

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

Forward Looking InformationThis Presentation contains ‘‘forward-looking information’’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking information may include, but is not limited to, information with respect to the anticipated production and developments in our operations in future periods, our planned exploration and development activities, the adequacy of our financial resources, the estimation of mineral resources, realization of mineral resource estimates, costs and timing of development of the projects we currently intend to acquire (the “Projects”), costs and timing of future exploration, results of future exploration and drilling, timing and receipt of approvals, consents and permits under applicable legislation, our executive compensation approach and practice, the composition of our board of directors and committees, and adequacy of financial resources. Wherever possible, words such as ‘‘plans’’, ‘‘expects’’ or ‘‘does not expect’’, ‘‘budget’’, ‘‘scheduled’’, ‘‘estimates’’, ‘‘forecasts’’, ‘‘anticipate’’ or ‘‘does not anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘intend’’ and similar expressions or statements that certain actions, events or results ‘‘may’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘would’’, ‘‘might’’ or ‘‘will’’ be taken, occur or be achieved, have been used to identify forward-looking information. Statements concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute forward-looking information to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that will be encountered if the property is developed. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as ‘‘expects’’, ‘‘anticipates’’, ‘‘plans’’, ‘‘projects’’, ‘‘estimates’’, ‘‘assumes’’, ‘‘intends’’, ‘‘strategy’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘potential’’ or variations thereof, or stating that certain actions, events or results ‘‘may’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘would’’, ‘‘might’’ or ‘‘will’’ be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking information. Forward-looking information is subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking information. Many of these risks are listed and described in our final short-form prospectus dated April 4, 2011 (the “Prospectus”), which is available for review on SEDAR at www.sedar.com under our profile. Although we have attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Forward-looking information involves statements about the future and is inherently uncertain, and our actual achievements or other future events or conditions may differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking information due to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors, including, without limitation, those referred to in the Prospectus under the heading ‘‘Risk Factors’’. Our forward-looking information is based on the beliefs, expectations and opinions of management on the date the statements are made, and we do not assume any obligation to update forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by applicable law. For the reasons set forth above, prospective investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.National Instrument 43-101Technical and scientific information contained herein relating to the Projects is derived from National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) compliant technical reports (“Reports”) “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Snowfield Property” and “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Brucejack Property” dated February 18, 2011; ‘‘Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Snowfield Brucejack Project’’ dated October 28, 2010 ; “Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project” dated June 3, 2011; and “Technical Report and Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project” dated February 20, 2012. We have filed the Reports under our profile at www.sedar.com. Technical and scientific information not contained within the Reports for the Projects have been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Kenneth C. McNaughton, an independent “qualified person” under NI 43-101.This presentation uses the terms “measured resources”, “indicated resources” (together “M&I”) and “inferred resources”. Although these terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations (under NI 43-101), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. Mineral resources which 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. There is no guarantee that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves.In addition, “inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred 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 or pre feasibility studies, or economic studies, except for a Preliminary Assessment as defined under NI43 101. Investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable. CurrencyUnless otherwise indicated, all dollar values herein are in Canadian $.

2

3

Advanced-exploration gold company in Canada, in an area of permitted gold mining

Significant high-grade gold resource at Brucejack: 5 million ounces Measured & Indicated (9.3 Mt @ 16.62 g/t gold )3 million ounces Inferred (4.0 Mt @ 25.67 g/t gold) Opportunity for near-term production Advancing as a stand-alone underground project

Bulk-tonnage gold ounces at Brucejack (13 million oz M&I) offer scale-up opportunity

Snowfield bulk-tonnage gold opportunity

Why ?

BRUCEJACK AND SNOWFIELD PROJECTS

4

BRUCEJACK PROJECT CHRONOLOGY

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2009 2010 2011

Gol

d re

sour

ces (

mil)

Met

ers

Brucejack Gold Resources Growth

M&I Au Inf Au Meters drilled

1960-1980

1980-1985

1986-1989

1990

1993

1999-2000

2009-2010

2011

2012

Exploration

West Zone discovery

and definition

5.3 km underground

development of West Zone

West Zone Feasibility Study

completed

Mine Development Certificate issued

Acquisition by Silver Standard Resources Inc.

Exploration resumes. Discovery of Valley of the

Kings Zone. Acquisition by Pretivm

(December 2010)

• PEA on Brucejack high-grade (June)

• 72,144-meter drill program (May-Oct)

• Resource update (November)

• Updated PEA on Brucejack high-grade (Q1)

• Feasibility Study (Q4)

BRUCEJACK PLAN VIEW

6

CAMP

PROPOSED DECLINE

HISTORIC UNDERGROUND WORKINGS

BRUCEJACK EXPLORATION DRILLING

7

>0.3 g/t gold

500mExisting 5km underground workings

1980-1994 – Newhawk908 DDH/120,000m

2009-2010 – Silver Standard110 DDH/50,946m

2011 – Pretivm176 DDH/72,144m

West Zone

Valley of the Kings Zone

North – South



Historic Au resource:421,000 oz M&I82,700 oz Inferred

2010 Au resource:8.2M oz M&I12.6M oz Inferred


500m


VISIBLE GOLD

8

SU-195 (2011)SU-115 (2011)

SU-84 (2010) SU-29 (2009)

SU-260 (2011)

Brucejack Top 20 High-grade Gold Hits

HoleInterval(meters)

Depth (meters)

Gold (g/t)Gold

(oz/ton)

SU-115 0.6 60.6 18,755 547.0SU-260 0.5 68.4 17,750 517.7SU-12 1.5 273.0 16,948 494.3SU-230 1.0 305.7 7,420 216.4SU-150 0.5 76.4 6,670 194.5SU-40 1.64 648.0 5,850 170.6SU-195 0.5 349.4 5,740 167.4SU-84 0.44 198.0 5,480 159.8SU-29 0.5 560.0 5,344 155.9SU-115 0.51 76.1 4,209 122.8SU-132 0.5 57.68 4,060 118.4SU-249 0.5 115.6 3,880 113.2SU-239 1.0 310.0 3,460 100.9SU-176 0.5 335.8 2,810 81.9SU-54 1.59 53.6 2,490 72.6SU-106 0.69 240.4 1,710 49.9SU-150 0.5 59.0 1,640 47.8SU-136 0.84 228.0 1,550 45.2SU-226 0.52 335.0 1,465 42.7SU-150 1.03 234.0 1,280 37.3SU-157 0.54 350.0 1,200 35.0SU-190 1.98 520.68 1,094 31.9SU-135 0.5 75.0 1,070 31.2SU-193 1.5 93.5 1,040 30.3SU-53 1.5 21.5 1,025 29.9SU-115 1.28 61.2 1,005 29.3

BRUCEJACK RESOURCE – HIGH-GRADE

9

Brucejack Project 5.0 g/t Grade & Tonnage Estimate – November 2011(1)(2)

(Based on a cut-off grade of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)

Category Tonnes(millions)

Gold(g/t)

Silver(g/t)

ContainedGold

(million oz)Silver

(million oz)Measured 2.4 7.93 236.1 0.60 18.0Indicated 6.9 19.99 60.9 4.46 13.6M+I 9.3 16.92 105.6 5.06 31.6Inferred 4.0 25.67 20.6 3.33 2.7

97 drill holes /42,000 m for 5.0 g/t resource

32 samples grading over 1,000 g/t Au

157 samples grading 100 g/t to 999.99 g/t Au

529 samples grading 20 g/t to 99.99 g/t Au

(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions are: Au US$1,200/oz. (71%); Ag US$22/oz. (70%)(2) 5.0 g/t cutoff within the 0.30 grams of au-equiv /tonne optimized pit shell

Brucejack Project Underground Sensitivity – November 2011(1)(3)

(Based on a cut-off of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)


Gold(g/t)

Silver(g/t)

ContainedGold

(million oz)Silver


(3) The Underground Sensitivity is a sensitivity study of the Brucejack underground potential and is not meant to supercede or replace the results of the bulk-tonnage mineral resource estimate. Sensitivity results are not reported within a constraining Whittle pit shell.

Grade Intervals (g/t Au) % of total2009-2010

(1,122 samples) 0.5 to 4.99 94.25.0 to 19.99 3.7

+20 2.12011

(6,252 samples) 0.5 to 4.99 95.15.0 to 19.99 2.9

+20 1.9

Valley of the Kings Intersection Statistics

Brucejack Summary Assay Statistics

Log-Probability Graph of Au Composite Data

VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE

10

11


TSX, NYSE:PVG

12


TSX, NYSE:PVG

13


Will be revised


14TSX, NYSE:PVGOpen

Open

RED LAKE COMPARISON

15

WEST ZONE

16

Based on 1980’s/1990’s drilling

Open

WEST ZONE

17TSX, NYSE:PVG

HIGH-GRADE RESOURCE AREAS

18

West ZoneValley of the Kings Zone

5x5x5 blocks (>5.0 g/t AuEq) within low-grade halo. Zones are 450 meters apart.


Gold(g/t)

Silver(g/t)

ContainedGold

(million oz)Silver



Gold(g/t)

Silver(g/t)

ContainedGold

(million oz)Silver

(million oz)Measured 0 0 0 0 0Indicated 4.6 29.72 22.6 4.4 3.37M+I 4.6 29.72 22.6 4.4 3.37Inferred 3.7 26.89 17.5 3.23 2.11

West Zone Underground Sensitivity (1)Valley of the Kings Zone Underground Sensitivity (1)

(1) The Underground Sensitivity is a sensitivity study of the Brucejack underground potential and is not meant to supercede or replace the results of the bulk-tonnage mineral resource estimate. Sensitivity results are not reported within a constraining Whittle pit shell.

Historic underground

workings (5.3km)

Proposed exploration decline

BRUCEJACK ENGINEERING STUDIES

February 2012 Updated PEA(1,2,3) based on 5.0 g/t cut-off gold resource of 5.33 million ounces M&I (8.6Mt @ 19.35 g/t gold) and 3.29 million ounces Inferred (4.0Mt @ 25.73 g/t gold):

– Base Case pre-tax NPV (5% discount) of US$2.262 billion– Average annual production years 1-12 of 325,000 ounces of gold– Total of 6.9 million ounces of gold over the 24-year mine life– Internal rate of return of 29.8%– Capex of US$436.3 million– Mining costs of C$103.60/t milled – Total operating costs of C$170.90/t milled– Gold recovery of 95.7% (gravity and flotation)

Feasibility study anticipated Q4

19

(1) Source: Technical Report and Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project, effective date February 20, 2012(2) Base Case metals prices of US$1,100/oz gold and US$21/oz silver, exchange rate of US$0.93:C$1.00(3) Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty the PEA will be realized.

Advancing near-term production

BRUCEJACK HIGH-GRADE COMPARISON

20

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

Mea

sure

d &

Indi

cate

d +

Infe

rred

Gol

d G

rade

(g/t)

Measured & Indicated + Inferred Gold Resources (mm oz)

Brucejack (2011)

Kensington

Red Lake

Eleonore

QuimsacochaEl Penon

Casa Berardi

Jerritt Canyon

Kirkland Lake

Brucejack (2010)

Cerro Negro

Brucejack gold resources based on a cut-off grade of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne within the 0.30 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne optimized pit shell.Source: Intierra Ltd.

VALUE CREATION: CASE STUDY

At Feasibility-stage with exploration potential

Gold resources at time of acquisition, December 2010:– Indicated Resources of 2.54 million ounces (13.8 million tonnes at 5.71 g/t)

• Includes Probable Reserves of 2.07 million ounces at 9.03 g/t Au– Inferred Resources 0.52 million ounces (5.02 million tonnes at 3.24 g/t)

Gold reserves and resources at March 31, 2011 (post acquisition by Goldcorp)– Probable Reserves of 4.26 million ounces (13 million tonnes at 10.19 g/t)– Indicated Resources of 0.38 million ounces (4.67 million tonnes at 2.50 g/t)– Inferred Resources of 0.72 million ounces (4.51 million tonnes at 4.98 g/t)

21

Andean Resources acquired for $3.6 billion by Goldcorp in Q4 2010 for Cerro Negro Project

BRUCEJACK RESOURCE - GLOBAL

22

Gold/silver vein systems within lower grade envelopes

Mineralization remains open

(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions are: Au US$1,200/oz. (71%); Ag US$22/oz. (70%)


Gold(g/t)

Silver( g/t)

ContainedGold

(million oz)Silver



Gold(g/t)

Silver(g/t)

ContainedGold

(million oz)Silver


Brucejack Project Bulk-Tonnage Mineral Resource Estimate –November 2011 (1)

(Based on a cut-off grade of 0.30 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)

Brucejack Project 1.25 Grade & Tonnage Estimate –November 2011 (1),(2)

(2)@ 1.25 g/t cut-off within the 0.30 grams of au-equiv/tonne optimized pit shell.

SNOWFIELD PROJECT

23

Snowfield Open Pit(September 2010 PA)

Mitchell Zone(SEA)

Sulphurets Zone(SEA)

Iron Cap Zone(SEA)

Grade Contained MetalTonnes Au Ag Cu Mo Re Au Ag Cu

(mt) (g/t) (g/t) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (mm oz)

(mm oz) (bil lbs)

Measured 189.8 0.82 1.69 0.09% 97.4 0.57 4.98 10.3 0.38Indicated 1,180.3 0.55 1.73 0.10% 83.6 0.50 20.93 65.4 2.60Measured & Indicated 1,370.1 0.59 1.72 0.10% 85.5 0.51 25.92 75.8 2.98

Inferred 833.2 0.34 1.90 0.06% 69.5 0.43 9.03 50.9 1.10

Snowfield Mineral Resource Summary – Feb. 2011(1,2)

(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions: Au US$1,025/oz (71%); Ag US$16.60/oz (70%); Cu US$3.0/lb (70%); Mo US$19.00/lb (60%); Re US$145.00/oz. (60%)(2) Mineral resource estimate at 0.30g/t AuEq cut-off.

Inferred ResourcesMeasured + Indicated Resources

4015 4 9

66

49

38 26

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pebble KSM Donlin Gold Snowfield

Gol

d R

esou

rces

(mm

oz.

)

Large –Scale North American Gold Projects

(PVG)(NG/ABX)

(SEA)

(NDM)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & SUSTAINABILITY

24

Pretivm’s Social Responsibility Policy reflects our commitment to establishing positive, trusting relationships with First Nations, local communities and other key stakeholders

We are working to ensure that communication with local communities is open and continuous, and that the benefits of our exploration success can extend to them

We will collaborate with community leaders to explore training and employment opportunities

Pretivm’s management team has been cooperatively engaging with local community leaders in the Stewart, BC region for over 10 years

We have begun the consultation process with community leaders concerning the Brucejack high-grade opportunity

PVG SHARE PERFORMANCE

25

Share Return from January 1, 2011 – March 7, 2012 (%)

Pretivm

Pretivm S&P/TSX Global Mining Index XAU Index

SHAREHOLDING & ANALYST COVERAGE

26

Institutions, 50%

Retail, 23%

Management, 5%

Silver Standard,

22%

Capital Structure(1,2)

Public Float 69.2Silver Standard Shares 18.9 Total Issued & Outstanding Shares 88.1 Incentive Options 6.9Total Fully Diluted Shares Outstanding 95.0

Working Capital (at Dec. 30, 2011) C$18.7 millionFlow-through gross proceeds (at Feb 17, 2012) (4) C$23.1 million

Top Shareholders(1,3) (shares in millions)

Silver Standard Resources 18.913Royce & Associates 6.547Carmignac Gestion 4.555 Fidelity 3.614Robert Quartermain 2.876 Norges Bank Investment 2.409 Passport Capital 2.140

Analyst CoverageCIBC Brian QuastCitibank Alex HackingCormark Securities Richard GrayDahlman Rose Adam GrafGMP Securities Craig WestSalman Partners Ash GuglaniUBS Dan RollinsVery Independent Research John Tumazos

(1)Assumes the exercise of 5,750,000 share purchase warrants each exercisable to purchase one share of Pretivm owned by Silver Standard at $12.50 until April 7, 2012.(2)As of February 17, 2012; ownership calculated on an undiluted basis.(3)As of March 8. Source: IPREO, SEDI(4)See news release dated February 17, 2012

(shares in millions)

MANAGEMENT & BOARD

27

Robert Quartermain, B.Sc., M.Sc., P.Geo, D.Sc. President & Chief Executive Officer, Director

Peter de Visser, CAChief Financial Officer

Joseph Ovsenek, B.A. Sc., P.Eng., LLBVice President & Chief Development Officer, Director

Ken McNaughton, M.A. Sc., P.Eng.Vice President & Chief Exploration Officer

Ken Konkin, P.Geo.Project Manager

Ian I Chang, M.A. Sc., P.Eng.Vice President, Project Development

(1)All senior management and directors are shareholders of Pretivm

(L to R): John Smith, CEO, Silver Standard; Tom Yip, CFO, International Tower Hill Mines; Robert Quartermain; Ross Mitchell, former CFO, Silver Standard; Joseph Ovsenek; Noel Dunn, Managing Director, Liberty Metals & Mining

CONTACTPhone: 604-558-1784Fax: 604-558-4784Toll-free: [email protected]

HEAD OFFICEPretium Resources Inc.570 Granville St.Suite 1600Vancouver, BCCanada V6C 3P1

COMMON SHARESTSX/NYSE:PVGIssued: 88.1 millionFully diluted: 95.0 million52-week hi/low: $18.15/$7.89Market capitalization (at March 8, 2012):$1.55 billion

march presentation web

Business

forwardlooking information

scientific information

result of new information

actual events

timing of future exploration

brucejack property

inferred resources

statements thatexpress