PERSEUS MINING LIMITED — Investor Presentation 2017

Nov 2, 2017

==> picture [720 x 42] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [219 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

Yaouré Gold Project Definitive Feasibility Study Market Presentation 3 Nov 2017

==> picture [692 x 139] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Overview

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Positive DFS completed at end of October 2017 confirming Yaouré is:

• Economically very attractive – IRR of 27% & 32 month payback period at US$1,250

• Technically robust - 3.3MTPA plant with average annual gold production of 215,000 ounces at an AISC of US$734/oz for first 5 years

• Readily financeable - realistic capital cost of US$263 million and robust cash flows to service debt

• Able to be extended beyond current 8.5 year mine life through nearpit drilling and successful exploration of surrounding 513 Km[2] land package

• Capable of delivering significant value to Perseus’s shareholders confirming pre-acquisition expectations

2

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

DFS Completed in 4 Stages

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Stage 1

– Review & revision of parameters

– Option identification & data requirements

• Stage 2

– Initial data collection and option evaluation

– Shortlist options & data requirements

• Stage 3

– Final data collection and option evaluation

• Final Project Option Selected

• Stage 4

– Refinement of design/costs

– Recommendation for detailed engineering

3

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Perseus Drilling Program

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Multiple objectives

• Increasing confidence

• Reducing risk

• Clearing infrastructure

• Identify opportunities

	Drilling Type	Metres	# Holes	Ave Hole Depth	Hole Colour	4
	Resource Definition Drilling	34,807	364	96
	Grade Control Drilling	12,709	417	30
	Geotechnical Drilling	2,616	21	125
	Hydrogeological Drilling	1,202	10	120
	Sterilisation Drilling	18,728	626	30
	Extensional Resource Drilling	2245	35	64
		,
	Total	72,307	1,473	49

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Resource Drilling – Total Metres

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Phase	Type	No. Holes	Metres of drilling	Metres of drilling	Metres of drilling	Metres of drilling	Metres of drilling	Metres of drilling
			Auger	RAB	AC	RC	Diamond	Total
BRGM 1998 - 2001	RC Diamond Subtotal	82 2 84	- - -	- - -	- - -	5,082 - 5,082	- 155 155	5,082 155 5,237
Cluff 2005 - 2007	RC Diamond Subtotal	676 62 738	- - -	- - -	- - -	45,645 - 45,645	- 6,483 6,483	45,645 6,483 52,128
Amara 2012 – 2015	Auger RAB RC Diamond Subtotal	252 82 130 463 927	2,173 - - - 2,173	- 1,076 - - 1,076	- - - - -	- - 21,472 - 21,472	- - - 127,906 127,906	2,173 1,076 21,472 127,906 152,627
Perseus 2017	Auger Aircore RC RC GC Diamond Subtotal	19 50 267 417 121 874	203 - - - - 203	- - - - - -	- 2,030 - - - 2,030	- - 20,557 12,709 6,643 39,909	- - - - 11,756 11,756	203 2,030 20,557 12,709 18,399 53,898
Total	Auger1 RAB2 Aircore RC RC GC Diamond	271 82 50 1,155 417 648	2,376 - - - - -	- 1,076 - - - -	- - 2,030 - - -	- - - 92,756 12,709 6,643	- - - - -	2,376 1,076 2,030 92,756 12,709 152,942
							146,299
	Total	2,641	2,583	1,076	2,030	~~k~~ 112,108	146,299	264,096

5

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Hole Locations and Geological Domains

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [720 x 443] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

•
Infill drilling sufficient for
delineation of Indicated
Resources
•
Hole spacing:
–
CMA and Yaoure 25m x 50m
–
Drilled in $1,200 pit shell
•
Previous spacing considered
too wide to define Indicated
•
Prospective areas also targeted
•
Domains defined on style of
mineralisation, geology and pit
area
6
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Section Through Geological Domains

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [704 x 298] intentionally omitted <==

• Drill orientation predominantly east to west

• Optimum for CMA and Y structures (majority of mineralisation)

• Oblique to S structures (Drilling ~45° to mineralisation)

7

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Yaouré Resource Model

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• MIK estimates of recoverable proportions above a series of cut-off grades

• Incorporates block support and Information Effect adjustments

• Controlled by geological domains of similar tenor and spatial continuity

==> picture [646 x 273] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

US1,200 design
US$1,800 shell M+I+I
----- End of picture text -----

8

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Mineral Resource Estimate

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Deposit	Deposit Type	Indicated Resources	Inferred Resources
		Quantity Grade Gold Mt g/t gold Moz	Quantity Grade Gold Mt g/t gold Moz
CMA Yaouré	Open Pit Open Pit	24.8 1.81 1.44 16.5 0.81 0.43	16 1.2 0.6 30 0.9 0.9
Sub-Total	Open Pit	41.3 1.41 1.87	46 1.0 1.5
Heap Leach4	Stockpile	1.8 1.02 0.06
Total		43.1 1.39 1.93	46 1.0 1.5

Notes:

1. Depleted for previous mining.

2. 0.4g/t gold cut-off applied to in situ open pit material

3. In situ resources constrained to $1,800/oz pit shell

4. Heap leach resources are stated at 0.0g/t gold cut-off if the average grade of the heap component is above 0.4g/t

5. Mineral Resources are inclusive of any Ore Reserves

6. Numbers are rounded

9

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Metallurgical Testwork Program

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Comminution (SMC, Ai, BWI and RWI):

• 18 x variability samples (7 in CMA, 6 Yaouré granodiorite, 5 Yaouré basalt)

• 5 x composite samples (CMA, Yaouré granodiorite, Yaouré basalt S, Yaouré basalt Y, Oxide)

• Flowsheet Development

• Grind optimisation P80 53µm to 106µm

• Mineralogy (QEMSCAN)

• Diagnostic leach

• Cyanide optimisation

– Gravity/Leach

• Oxygen / Air / Pre-oxidation / Lead Nitrate

• Direct leach

• % solids optimisation

10

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Metallurgical Testwork Program

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Ancillary Testwork:

• Oxygen uptake

• Viscosity

• Sequential CIP

• Cyanide detoxification – Air /SO2 and Hydrogen peroxide

• Thickening

• Heap Leach

• Standard flowsheet test on each of 5 heap leach composites

• Leach Variability

• 78 samples: 10 x oxide, 8 x transition, 36 x CMA, 6 x Yaouré Granodiorite, 9 x Yaouré Basalt S, 6 x Yaouré Basalt Y and 3 x Porphyry

11

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Grind Optimisation

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Testwork

Gravity/Leach Tests at 5 grind sizes:

• P80 = 105μm

• P80 = 90μm

• P80 = 75μm

• P80 = 63μm

• P80 = 53μm

Recovery increases with decreasing grind (Note PFS covered P80 = 250μm – 75μm)

==> picture [380 x 212] intentionally omitted <==

Financial Evaluation

• Gold = $1,200/oz

• Test data (recovery and reagent consumption)

• Incremental capital amortised over 4y @3Mt/y

• Opex grinding and leach only

• No net revenue increase below P80 75μm

• P80 = 75μm selected (confirms PFS result)

12

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Cyanide Consumption

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Ore is typically “clean” no major cyanide consumers

• 78 leach tests

• Average consumption = 0.23kg/t

• Maximum consumption = 0.39kg/t

• Minimum consumption = 0.07kg/t

• Operating costs use following additions:

– 0.43kg/t for CIL (ensures sufficient free cyanide at back of CIL)

• 285kg/strip for elution

• 179kg/batch for intensive cyanidation of gravity concentrate

13

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Leach Variability

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Ore Type	No of Tests / Samples	Head Grade	Head Grade	Gravity Recovery	Gravity Recovery	Recovery @ 36 Hours	Recovery @ 36 Hours	Cyanide Consumption	Cyanide Consumption
		Average	Range	Average	Range	Average	Range	Average	Range
Oxide¹ Transition CMA Yaoure Yaoure Basalt Yaoure Basalt Porphyry	10 8 36 6 9 6 3	2.06 3.7 2.2 2.29 5.81 2.95 1.84	0.64 - 4.11 1.17 - 10.11 0.63 - 4.10 0.81 - 6.35 0.84 - 28.4 1.06 - 4.37 1.12 - 2.57	26.8 49.9 38 63.1 43.3 51.6 47.9	6.6 - 73.4 19.8 - 73.4 23.2 - 58.8 40.0 - 84.5 21.9 - 67.6 25.7 - 71.3 38.4 - 64.6	95.3 94 90.6 95.3 93.3 92.8 95.5	89.1 - 98.9 83.0 - 97.5 83.5 - 97.3 91.4 - 98.7 90.2 - 97.2 89.5 - 95.9 94.0 - 96.9	0.31 0.21 0.23 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.2	0.25 - 0.37 0.07 - 0.30 0.17 - 0.32 0.14 - 0.24 0.17 - 0.39 0.17 -0.32 0.14 - 0.29
Total	78	2.78	0.63 - 28.4	41.3	606 - 84.5	92.5	83.0 - 98.9	0.23	0.07 - 0.39

¹ Two oxide results not included. Currently under investigation due to slow leaching

14

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Heap Leach Evaluation

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [713 x 132] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [409 x 284] intentionally omitted <==

Tonnes: CMA 1 0.42 Mt CMA 2 0.75 Mt CMA 3 0.59 Mt Cluff 2.05 Mt E Global 0.26 Mt

Reserve:

CMA1, CMA2 and E Global are included in the reserve of:

1.4Mt @ 1.14g/t for 52Koz

15

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Metallurgical Recovery

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Ex-pit recovery in excess of 90%

• Heap leach recovery 83-85%

Ore Source and Rock Type	Units	Heap Leach	Oxide	Transition	Fresh
CMA - Granodiorite CMA – Basalt/Volcanoclastic Yaouré - Granodiorite Yaouré – Basalt/Volcanoclastic	% % % %	- - - -	92% 92% 92% 92%	90% 90% 90% 90%	(100 x (Au - (0.095 x Au0.94) - 0.011) / Au)% (100 x (Au - (0.095 x Au0.94) - 0.011) / Au)% 90% 90%
Heap leach - CMA 1 Heap leach - CMA 2 Heapleach - E Global	% % %	85% 83% 84%	- - -	- - -	- - -

16

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Comminution Circuit

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Fresh ore is hard

• Fine grind required

• More power than Sissingué and Edikan

• 40% more than Sissingué (106μm grind)

• 48-173% more than Edikan (250μm grind)

Ore Type	Unit	Throughput Rate	Throughput Rate
		Mill Limit	Design
Oxide Transition CMA Basalt Yaouré Basalt Yaouré Granodiorite	t/h t/h t/h t/h t/h	871 570 417 308 316	417 417 417 308 316

Ore Type	Unit	Grinding Power
Oxide Transition CMA Basalt Yaouré Basalt Yaouré Granodiorite Sissingué Edikan Esuajah North Edikan Fetish	kW/t kW/t kW/t kW/t kW/t kW/t kW/t kW/t	8.2 16.3 23.1 31.2 28.2 22.2-25.5 11-14 13-18

• Yaouré fresh ores are hard and will need to be blended with other ores to maintain 3Mt/y

• CMA, oxide and transition throughput rate increased 3.3Mt/y (417t/h)

• Uses all available power on CMA

• Mills have capacity to treat transition and oxide ores faster than 3.3Mt/y (417t/h)

17

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Processing Plant – Flowsheet

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [40 x 3] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

CYANIDE DETOX TANK
----- End of picture text -----

18

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Processing Plant – General Specifications

Parameter	Unit	Value
Processing Rate Comminution Circuit Type Gravity Circuit Leach Circuit No. of leach tanks No. of adsorption tanks Residence time Sparging Elution Circuit Capacity Cyanide Detoxification	Mt/y h t C / strip	2.5-3.3 SABC Batch Centrifugal with ILR and EW Hybrid CIL 1 6 30 air only split AARL 8 Air/SO2

19

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Processing Plant – Equipment Summary

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Parameter	Unit	Value	Comment
Primary Crusher Crushed Ore Stockpile SAG Mill¹ Installed Power Speed Ball Mill¹ Installed Power Speed Pebble Crusher Gravity Concentrator Intensive Cyanidation Leach Density Leach Tank Size Detox Tank Size	kW %Nc kW %Nc %w/w m3 m3	Jaw Conical Grate Disch 6,000 60-80 Overflow 6,000 75 Cone 2 x Kneslon Batch 40 2,933 540	Metso C140, 800mm top size 24h live and 72h total 8.35m dia x 4.35m EGL Pinion power (nom/max) 4,391/5,700 Variable by SER 6.10m dia x 9.05m EGL Pinion power (nom/max) 4,530/5,700 Fixed 220kW HP3, 28% recycle rate KC-QS48MS ILR2000BA 5t/batch Live volume x 7 tanks = 20,169m3 Live volume x 2 tanks = 1,080m3

¹Selected mill is identical to 2 new projects in West Africa

20

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Processing Plant Layout

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [653 x 397] intentionally omitted <==

21

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Processing Cost Estimate

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Costs are based on experience from Edikan and Sissingué

– Recent contract awards

– Operating experience

• Costs also from Yaouré specific testwork and quotes

• Power $0.128/kWh, Diesel $0.57/L

Cost Area	Unit	Oxide/HL	Transition	CMA	Y - Basalt	**Y - Granite **	LOM Total
Labour Power Maintenance materials Reagents and consumables Miscellaneous	$/t ore $/t ore $/t ore $/t ore $/t ore	2.36 2.84 1.13 2.98 0.25	2.36 3.93 1.20 3.47 0.25	2.36 4.85 1.20 3.38 0.25	3.20 6.52 1.64 4.78 0.34	3.11 6.06 1.64 4.88 0.33	2.48 4.55 1.23 3.45 0.26
Total	$/t ore	9.57	11.21	12.04	16.49	16.02	11.97

22

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Mining RFQ and Drill & Blast Assessment

• Two stage RFQ process completed with 5 contractors

• Drill and blast cost

• High powder factors

• 5m blasting in ore and adjacent waste

• 10m blasting in bulk waste away from ore

• Rehandle and grade control based on Edikan/Sissingué

23

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Mining Equipment Selection (from RFQ)

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Mixed excavator fleet

• 100-140 tonne excavator for ore

• 200-300 tonne excavator for bulk waste

• 100 tonne haul truck (equivalent of Cat 777)

• 24 – 30 trucks

• Ancillary gear:

– Dozers (equivalent of Cat D9R)

• Batter excavator

• Graders (equivalent of CAT 16M)

– Blasthole and grade control drill rigs (equivalent of Panterra 1500)

• Water Trucks

24

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

CMA Pit Cutback Designs

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [686 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

25

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Yaouré Pit Designs

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [594 x 364] intentionally omitted <==

26

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Ore Reserve Estimate

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Deposit	Deposit Type	Quantity Grade Gold Mt g/t gold Moz Probable Reserve
CMA Yaouré	Open Pit Open Pit	20.7 1.97 1.31 4.7 1.04 0.15
Sub-Total	Open Pit	25.3 1.80 1.47
Heap Leach6	Stockpile	1.4 1.14 0.05
Total		26.8 1.76 1.52

Notes:

1. Numbers are rounded and may not add up correctly in the table

2. All the estimates are on a dry tonne basis

3. Based on November 2017 Mineral Resource estimation

4. Variable gold cut-off grade based on material type

5. Inferred Mineral Resource is treated as mineralised waste

6. Heap Leach refers to decommissioned heap leach pads established by prior owners of Yaouré

7. All Ore Reserves are in the Probable Reserve category with no Proven Reserves

27

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Cost/Oz for Components of Ore Reserve

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Deposit	Mining Costs US$ M	Processing Costs US$ M	Gold Production koz	Cost/oz US$/oz
CMA Stage 1 CMA Stage 2 CMA Stage 3	132 146 188	120 125 124	405 392 386	621 689 810
Yaoure North Yaoure South	47 13	70 16	112 27	1,040 1,065
CMA 1 Heap Leach CMA 2 Heap Leach E Global HeapLeach	0 1 0	6 11 4	15 23 6	440 502 604
Total	527	476	1,367	734

• Excludes mining pre-strip cost of $ 11.1M from CMA Stage 1

• Processing cost includes G&A, royalty at $1,250/oz and bullion cost

• Excludes sustaining capital

28

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Mining Schedule

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Heap Leach mined first along with CMA CB1 then CB2 and CB3

• Then Yaoure in 2 stages (north and south)

• Low grade stockpiles rehandled from year 6

==> picture [628 x 301] intentionally omitted <==

29

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Vertical Rate of Advance

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Mining rate generally around 5m/month

• 2 cutbacks progress at the same time in CMA

• Pit mining completed in 6 years then continue with stockpile rehandle only

==> picture [628 x 302] intentionally omitted <==

30

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tonnes and Grade Processed

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Head grade 1.7g/t in year 1 then average 2.4g/t for 4 years

• Tonnage ramp up allowed for in first year

• Throughput rate varied based on material type

• Lower grade stockpiles processed from year 6

==> picture [598 x 285] intentionally omitted <==

31

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Gold Production

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Gold Production 150koz in Yr 1 then average 230koz/year for next 4 years

• Start with HL then high grade CMA processed for first 5 years

• Lower grade stockpiles and Yaouré ore from Year 6 to 9

==> picture [587 x 282] intentionally omitted <==

32

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Surface Water Management

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [521 x 342] intentionally omitted <==

• Detailed design complete

• Runoff diversion

• Sediment dams

• No surface pumping required

• Pit dewatering requirements estimated

33

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Groundwater Management

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Groundwater model based on mining sequence

Pit Groundwater Inflows (In-Pit Sumps) and Dewatering Bore

• Drawdown of village wells assessed

• Inflows into pit and from bores determined

• Pumping

• requirements designed and costed

• No impact from Lake Kossou

34

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Geotechnical Design

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt	35 • Structural assessment completed • Weathering profile carefully logged • Slope dewatering consistent with hydrology • Presplit/trim blast CMA east/north walls • Walls are steep due to high quality rock mass Mining area Material Wall Bench height (m) Batter slope angle Berm width (main/intermediate) Inter-ramp slope angle North (West) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 North (East) 20 80/90 7/1.5 58.9 East 20 80/90 7.5/1.5 57.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 75 6 49 all other walls 10 80 6 52.2 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5 55.9 South 10 55 5 39.8 West 10 80 5.5 54 North 10 80 5 55.9 East 10 80 5.5 54 South 10 65 5 47 West 10 80 5 55.9 WF -Granodiorite South 10 55 5 39.8 WF - Basalt South 10 80 7 488 CMA Fresh rock WF (Transition zone) Yaoure Fresh Granodiorite Fresh Basalt
	Mining area	Material	Wall	Bench height (m)	Batter slope angle	Berm width (main/intermediate)	Inter-ramp slope angle
	CMA	Fresh rock	North (West) North (East) East South	20 20 20 10	80/90 80/90 80/90 55	7/1.5 7/1.5 7.5/1.5 5	58.9 58.9 57.9 39.8
		WF (Transition zone)	South West all other walls	10 10 10	55 75 80	5 6 6	39.8 49 52.2
	Yaoure	Fresh Granodiorite	North East South West	10 10 10 10	80 80 55 80	5 5 5 5.5	55.9 55.9 39.8 54
		Fresh Basalt	North East South West	10 10 10 10	80 80 65 80	5 5.5 5 5	55.9 54 47 55.9
		WF -Granodiorite	South	10	55	5	39.8
		WF - Basalt	South	10	80	7	488
							.
		WF - all other walls	All except South wall	10	80	6	52.2

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Infrastructure and Utilities

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Workforce

• 257, plus further 470 contract personnel (3 shifts)

• 144 person camp (116 ex-pat and senior staff)

• Power Supply

• 25.8MW Installed, 17.8MW Max demand, 16MW Ave demand

• 6.5km 225 kV line from Kossou Sub to site

• Water demand and supply

• Top up water ~120L/s

• 6km pipeline from Bandama River

36

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Infrastructure Layout

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [720 x 400] intentionally omitted <==

37

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings Storage Facility

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Total capacity 30 Mt

• TSF buttressed by a waste dump

• Nominal height 80m

• Clay lined TSF

• CN detox allowed for

38

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Water Supply and Balance

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Overall water balance is negative

• Water storage dam required in dry season (800k m³)

• Water extracted from Bandama River

• Max ~ 140L/s in dry season with high oxide in feed

• Pit dewatering of run-off & groundwater (Ave 45L/s)

• Potable water from bores with filtration, chlorination and UV sterilization plant

39

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Geochemistry (Waste Characterization)

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Geochemical analysis of waste, ore & tailings not problematic

• Vast majority of waste rock acid consuming or non acid forming

• Low risk of significant acid generation from waste rock

• Closure costs for basic cover systems sufficient

40

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

G&A Cost Estimate

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Costs are based on experience from Edikan and Sissingué

– Recent contract awards, operating experience

• Costs also from Yaouré specific quotes

• Includes labour, Abidjan office, insurances, minor contracts, community, security, OHS&E, vehicles, HR

• $3.45/t ore over the mine life ($92M)

41

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Development Capital Estimate

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Component	Cost Excluding Contingency US$ M	Contingency US$ M	Total Cost US$ M
Distributables	26.2	3.2	29.4
Treatment Plant	69.7	7.5	77.2
Reagents & Services	9.9	1.4	11.3
Infrastructure	49.2	4.8	54
Mining	17.9	0.2	18.1
Management	17.7	1.9	19.6
Owners Costs	48.3	4.8	53.2
Total	234.9	23.9	262.7

42

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Sustaining Capital Estimate

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Costs are based on experience from Edikan and Sissingué

– Recent contract awards, operating experience

• Costs also from Yaouré specific quotes

• Plant sustaining cost is 5% of development capital direct costs

Note:

Cost Area	Unit	Total LOM
Plant Modification TSF Lift Plant Sustaining Clear and Grub Top Soil Removal Mine contractor demob Rehab/closure	US$ M US$ M US$ M US$ M US$ M US$ M US$M	1.0 3.8 22.0 0.4 2.2 1.3 4.1
Total	US$ M	34.6

Costs are the total over the life of mine

43

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Annual Costs and Physicals[1]

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	LOMP
Ore mined Mt - - 2.75 4.38 4.37 3.35 6.64 3.83 - - -													25.3
Waste Mined M - - 29.08 23.84 24.33 25.49 22.01 8.93 - - - 2													133.7
Total mined Mt - - 31.84 28.22 28.71 28.84 28.65 12.77 - - -													159.0
Stripratio t:t - - 10.56 5.45 5.56 7.61 3.31 2.33 - - -													5.28
Miningcost US$/t mined - - 2.65 3.13 3.30 3.30 3.81 3.86 - - - 2													3.31
Headgrade g/t - - 1.73 2.50 2.29 2.10 2.71 1.58 0.71 0.71 0.71													1.76
Ore milled Mt - - 3.06 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.07 3.12 3.12 1.13													26.8
Processingcost US$/t milled - - 10.66 11.95 11.89 11.74 11.99 12.61 12.36 12.31 12.66													11.97
G&A cost US$/t milled - - 3.60 3.49 3.45 3.41 3.53 3.57 3.23 3.23 3.69 2													3.45
Recovery % 0.0% 0.0% 88.3% 90.5% 90.4% 90.4% 90.5% 90.1% 89.4% 89.4% 89.4%													90.1%
Goldproduced koz - - 150 241 220 202 262 140 64 64 23													1,367
Unit -1.5 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9													LOMP
Production Cost US$/oz - - 856 580 663 720 616 709 802 799 839													690
Royalties US$/oz - - 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44													44
SustainingCapital US$/oz - - 11 19 29 21 16 31 83 14 125													25
All-in-site cost US$/oz - - 911 642 736 785 676 783 928 857 1,008													759
Cashflow after tax US$M 87.6 - 175.2 - 50.7 146.5 113.2 94.1 150.2 49.0 15.3 19.5 5.3													381.1

Note:

1. The forecast of annual costs and physicals shown above is a long range forecast and the technical parameters and the US1,250/oz gold price on which the forecast is based are subject to change.

2. Mining and G&A excludes the pre-strip and heap leach.

44

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Gold Price Sensitivities

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Gold Price (US$/oz)	IRR1 (%)	Payback (Months)	NPV (US$ million)	NPV (US$ million)
			NPV5	NPV10
1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400	15 19 23 27 30 33 36	44 39 35 32 30 28 26	111 160 210 259 302 351 400	50 90 130 170 205 245 284

1After tax, ungeared, real internal rate of return

Gold Price (US$/oz)	Gross After Tax Cashflow1 US$ million	Net After Tax Cashflow2 2 US$ million	2 Cashflow (A$per share3) Annual Average Years 1-5 Annual Average LOM	2 Cashflow (A$per share3) Annual Average Years 1-5 Annual Average LOM
				Annual Average LOM
1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400	457 519.4 581.7 643.9 697.6 759.4 821.2	194.3 256.7 319 381.1 434.9 496.7 558.5	$0.10 $0.11 $0.13 $0.14 $0.15 $0.16 $0.18	$0.06 $0.07 $0.08 $0.09 $0.10 $0.11 $0.12

1 Before deducting development capital. 2 After deducting development capital. 3 Assumes A$1.00=US$0.77

45

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Near-mine Potential

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• Numerous targets identified

• Some close to infrastructure

• Some targets could convert Inferred to Indicated

• Some targets could add resources and/or reserves

• Prioritised program planned

==> picture [428 x 373] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Magazine
Plant Site
Govisou Zone North
Angovia 2
CMA South
Kongonza SE
----- End of picture text -----

46

==> picture [720 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Disclaimer and competent person statement

==> picture [133 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

• This report contains forward-looking information which is based on the assumptions, estimates, analysis and opinions of management made in light of its experience and its perception of trends, current conditions and expected developments, as well as other factors that management of the Company believes to be relevant and reasonable in the circumstances at the date that such statements are made, but which may prove to be incorrect. Assumptions have been made by the Company regarding, among other things: the price of gold, continuing commercial production at the Edikan Gold Mine without any major disruption, development of a mine at Sissingué and/or Yaouré, the receipt of required governmental approvals, the accuracy of capital and operating cost estimates, the ability of the Company to operate in a safe, efficient and effective manner and the ability of the Company to obtain financing as and when required and on reasonable terms. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list is not exhaustive of all factors and assumptions which may have been used by the Company. Although management believes that the assumptions made by the Company and the expectations represented by such information are reasonable, there can be no assurance that the forward-looking information will prove to be accurate. 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 anticipated future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Such factors include, among others, the actual market price of gold, the actual results of current exploration, the actual results of future exploration, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be evaluated, as well as those factors disclosed in the Company's publicly filed documents. The Company believes that the assumptions and expectations reflected in the forward-looking information are reasonable. Assumptions have been made regarding, among other things, the Company’s ability to carry on its exploration and development activities, the timely receipt of required approvals, the price of gold, the ability of the Company to operate in a safe, efficient and effective manner and the ability of the Company to obtain financing as and when required and on reasonable terms. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Perseus does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

• All production targets for Yaouré referred to in this report are underpinned by estimated Ore Reserves which have been prepared by competent persons in accordance with the requirements of the JORC Code.

• The information in this report in relation to Yaouré Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimates was previously published in a market release dated 3 November 2017. The Company confirms that all material assumptions underpinning those estimates and the production targets, or the forecast financial information derived therefrom, in that market release continue to apply and have not materially changed.

47