1. March 2012

2. CAUTIONARY STATEMENT
Forward Looking Information
This 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 43-101
Technical 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.
Currency
Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar values herein are in Canadian $.
2

3. Why ?
 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
3

4. BRUCEJACK AND SNOWFIELD PROJECTS
4

5. BRUCEJACK PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Brucejack Gold Resources Growth
80,000 35
70,000 30
Gold resources (mil)
60,000
25
50,000
20
Meters
40,000
15
30,000
10
20,000
10,000 5
0 0
2009 2010 2011
M&I Au Inf Au Meters drilled
Exploration resumes.
5.3 km Discovery of Valley of the • Updated PEA on
underground Kings Zone. Brucejack high-grade
Exploration development of Mine Development Acquisition by Pretivm (Q1)
West Zone Certificate issued (December 2010) • Feasibility Study (Q4)
1960-1980 1986-1989 1993 2009-2010 2012
1980-1985 1990 1999-2000 2011
West Zone West Zone Acquisition by • PEA on Brucejack
discovery Feasibility Study Silver Standard high-grade (June)
and definition completed Resources Inc. • 72,144-meter drill
program (May-Oct)
• Resource update
(November)
5

6. BRUCEJACK PLAN VIEW
HISTORIC
UNDERGROUND WORKINGS
CAMP
PROPOSED DECLINE
6

7. BRUCEJACK EXPLORATION DRILLING
1980-1994 – Newhawk Valley of the Kings Zone
Historic Au resource: 908 DDH/120,000m
421,000 oz M&I West Zone
82,700 oz Inferred
2009 Au resource:
4.0M oz M&I 2009-2010 – Silver Standard Valley of the Kings Zone
4.9M oz Inferred 110 DDH/50,946m
2010 Au resource:
8.2M oz M&I
12.6M oz Inferred
Valley of the Kings Zone
2011 – Pretivm
2011 Au resource: 176 DDH/72,144m
12.9M oz M&I
18.2M oz Inferred
500m
>0.3 g/t gold
North – South
Existing 5km underground workings
500m
7

8. VISIBLE GOLD
Brucejack Top 20 High-grade Gold Hits
Interval Depth Gold
Hole Gold (g/t)
(meters) (meters) (oz/ton)
SU-115 0.6 60.6 18,755 547.0
SU-260 0.5 68.4 17,750 517.7
SU-12 1.5 273.0 16,948 494.3
SU-230 1.0 305.7 7,420 216.4
SU-150 0.5 76.4 6,670 194.5
SU-40 1.64 648.0 5,850 170.6
SU-195 0.5 349.4 5,740 167.4
SU-84 0.44 198.0 5,480 159.8
SU-29 0.5 560.0 5,344 155.9
SU-260 (2011) SU-115 0.51 76.1 4,209 122.8
SU-132 0.5 57.68 4,060 118.4
SU-249 0.5 115.6 3,880 113.2
SU-239 1.0 310.0 3,460 100.9
SU-176 0.5 335.8 2,810 81.9
SU-54 1.59 53.6 2,490 72.6
SU-106 0.69 240.4 1,710 49.9
SU-150 0.5 59.0 1,640 47.8
SU-136 0.84 228.0 1,550 45.2
SU-115 (2011) SU-195 (2011)
SU-226 0.52 335.0 1,465 42.7
SU-150 1.03 234.0 1,280 37.3
SU-157 0.54 350.0 1,200 35.0
SU-190 1.98 520.68 1,094 31.9
SU-135 0.5 75.0 1,070 31.2
SU-193 1.5 93.5 1,040 30.3
SU-53 1.5 21.5 1,025 29.9 8
SU-84 (2010) SU-29 (2009)
SU-115 1.28 61.2 1,005 29.3

9. BRUCEJACK RESOURCE – HIGH-GRADE
(1)(2)
Brucejack Project 5.0 g/t Grade & Tonnage Estimate – November 2011 Brucejack Summary Assay Statistics
(Based on a cut-off grade of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)
 97 drill holes /42,000 m for 5.0 g/t resource
Contained
Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver  32 samples grading over 1,000 g/t Au
(millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz)  157 samples grading 100 g/t to 999.99 g/t Au
Measured 2.4 7.93 236.1 0.60 18.0
 529 samples grading 20 g/t to 99.99 g/t Au
Indicated 6.9 19.99 60.9 4.46 13.6
M+I 9.3 16.92 105.6 5.06 31.6
Inferred 4.0 25.67 20.6 3.33 2.7 Valley of the Kings Intersection Statistics
Grade Intervals (g/t Au) % of total
2009-2010
(1,122 samples) 0.5 to 4.99 94.2
5.0 to 19.99 3.7
Brucejack Project Underground Sensitivity – November 2011
(1)(3) +20 2.1
(Based on a cut-off of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne) 2011
(6,252 samples) 0.5 to 4.99 95.1
Contained 5.0 to 19.99 2.9
Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver +20 1.9
(millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz) Log-Probability Graph of Au Composite Data
Measured 2.4 7.29 241.2 0.57 18.9
Indicated 6.1 24.13 53.3 4.76 10.5
M+I 8.6 19.35 106.7 5.33 29.4
Inferred 4.0 25.73 22.0 3.29 2.8
(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
(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.
9

10. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
10

11. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
TSX, NYSE:PVG 11

12. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
TSX, NYSE:PVG 12

13. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
Will be revised 13

14. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
Open
Open
TSX, NYSE:PVG 14

15. RED LAKE COMPARISON
15

16. WEST ZONE
Based on 1980’s/1990’s drilling
Open
16

17. WEST ZONE
TSX, NYSE:PVG 17

18. HIGH-GRADE RESOURCE AREAS
Valley of the Kings Zone West Zone
Proposed exploration decline
Historic
underground
workings (5.3km)
5x5x5 blocks (>5.0 g/t AuEq) within low-grade halo. Zones are 450 meters apart.
Valley of the Kings Zone Underground Sensitivity (1) West Zone Underground Sensitivity (1)
Contained Contained
Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver
(millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz) (millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz)
Measured 0 0 0 0 0 Measured 2.4 7.29 241.2 0.57 18.9
Indicated 4.6 29.72 22.6 4.4 3.37 Indicated 1.5 7.04 149.4 0.34 7.1
M+I 4.6 29.72 22.6 4.4 3.37 M+I 3.9 7.7 206.5 0.91 26.0
Inferred 3.7 26.89 17.5 3.23 2.11 Inferred 0.2 7.0 94.79 0.05 0.71
(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 18
estimate. Sensitivity results are not reported within a constraining Whittle pit shell.

19. BRUCEJACK ENGINEERING STUDIES
Advancing near-term production
 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
(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.
19

20. BRUCEJACK HIGH-GRADE COMPARISON
25.0
Brucejack
Measured & Indicated + Inferred Gold Grade (g/t)
(2011)
20.0
Kirkland Lake
15.0 Red Lake
Brucejack
(2010)
10.0 Cerro Negro
Jerritt Canyon Eleonore
Kensington El Penon
Quimsacocha
5.0 Casa Berardi
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Measured & Indicated + Inferred Gold Resources (mm oz)
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.
20

21. VALUE CREATION: CASE STUDY
Andean Resources acquired for $3.6 billion by Goldcorp
in Q4 2010 for Cerro Negro Project
 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

22. BRUCEJACK RESOURCE - GLOBAL
 Gold/silver vein systems within lower grade
envelopes
 Mineralization remains open
Brucejack Project Bulk-Tonnage Mineral Resource Estimate –
(1)
November 2011
(Based on a cut-off grade of 0.30 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)
Contained
Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver
(millions) (g/t) ( g/t) (million oz) (million oz)
Measured 12.2 2.50 81.6 0.99 32.1
Indicated 293.0 1.26 10.5 11.91 99.3
M+I 305.3 1.31 13.4 12.89 131.5
Inferred 813.7 0.70 7.7 18.20 201.2
Brucejack Project 1.25 Grade & Tonnage Estimate –
(1),(2)
November 2011
Contained
Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver
(millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz)
Measured 9.3 3.08 102.2 0.92 30.6
Indicated 64.8 3.62 23.7 7.53 49.4
M+I 74.1 3.55 33.6 8.46 80.0
Inferred 78.5 2.68 16.3 6.76 41.2
(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions are: Au US$1,200/oz. (71%); Ag US$22/oz. (70%)
(2)@ 1.25 g/t cut-off within the 0.30 grams of au-equiv/tonne optimized pit shell.
22

23. SNOWFIELD PROJECT
Large –Scale North American Gold Projects
Iron Cap Zone
120 (SEA)
(NDM) Snowfield Open Pit
100
Gold Resources (mm oz.)
(September 2010 PA)
80
66 (SEA) Mitchell Zone
60 (SEA)
(NG/ABX) (PVG)
40 49
20 40 38 26
Sulphurets Zone
15 9 (SEA)
0 4
Pebble KSM Donlin Gold Snowfield
Measured + Indicated Resources Inferred Resources
Snowfield Mineral Resource Summary – Feb. 2011(1,2)
Grade Contained Metal
Tonnes Au Ag Cu Mo Re Au Ag Cu
(mm (mm
(mt) (g/t) (g/t) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (bil lbs)
oz) oz)
Measured 189.8 0.82 1.69 0.09% 97.4 0.57 4.98 10.3 0.38
Indicated 1,180.3 0.55 1.73 0.10% 83.6 0.50 20.93 65.4 2.60
Measured &
1,370.1 0.59 1.72 0.10% 85.5 0.51 25.92 75.8 2.98
Indicated
Inferred 833.2 0.34 1.90 0.06% 69.5 0.43 9.03 50.9 1.10
(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. 23

24. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & SUSTAINABILITY
 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
24

25. PVG SHARE PERFORMANCE
Share Return from January 1, 2011 – March 7, 2012 (%)
Pretivm
Pretivm S&P/TSX Global Mining Index XAU Index
25

26. SHAREHOLDING & ANALYST COVERAGE
Top Shareholders(1,3) (shares in millions)
Silver
Standard, Silver Standard Resources 18.913
22% Royce & Associates 6.547
Management, Institutions, Carmignac Gestion 4.555
5% 50% Fidelity 3.614
Robert Quartermain 2.876
Retail, 23% Norges Bank Investment 2.409
Passport Capital 2.140
Capital Structure(1,2) (shares in millions) Analyst Coverage
Public Float 69.2 CIBC Brian Quast
Silver Standard Shares 18.9 Citibank Alex Hacking
Total Issued & Outstanding Shares 88.1 Cormark Securities Richard Gray
Incentive Options 6.9 Dahlman Rose Adam Graf
Total Fully Diluted Shares Outstanding 95.0 GMP Securities Craig West
Salman Partners Ash Guglani
Working Capital (at Dec. 30, 2011) C$18.7 million UBS Dan Rollins
Flow-through gross proceeds Very Independent Research John Tumazos
C$23.1 million
(at Feb 17, 2012) (4)
(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 26
(4)See news release dated February 17, 2012

27. MANAGEMENT & BOARD
Robert Quartermain, B.Sc., M.Sc., P.Geo, D.Sc.
President & Chief Executive Officer,
Director
Joseph Ovsenek, B.A. Sc., P.Eng., LLB
Vice President & Chief Development Officer,
Director
Ken McNaughton, M.A. Sc., P.Eng.
Vice President & Chief Exploration Officer
Ian I Chang, M.A. Sc., P.Eng.
Vice President, Project Development
(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
Ken Konkin, P.Geo.
Project Manager
Peter de Visser, CA
Chief Financial Officer
27
(1)All senior management and directors are shareholders of Pretivm

28. CONTACT HEAD OFFICE COMMON SHARES
Phone: 604-558-1784 Pretium Resources Inc. TSX/NYSE:PVG
Fax: 604-558-4784 570 Granville St. Issued: 88.1 million
Toll-free: 1-877-558-1784 Suite 1600 Fully diluted: 95.0 million
invest@pretivm.com Vancouver, BC 52-week hi/low: $18.15/$7.89
www.pretivm.com Canada V6C 3P1 Market capitalization
(at March 8, 2012):
$1.55 billion