This presentation includes forward looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements about our future results of operations and financial position, our business strategy and plans, and our objectives for future operations, among other things. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words, such as “estimate,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “plan,” “intend,” “believe,” “forecast,” “foresee,” “likely,” “may,” “should,” “goal,” “target,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “predict” and “continue.” Forward-looking statements are only predictions based on our current knowledge, expectations, and projections about future events. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions which include, but are not limited to, those listed under the heading “Risk Factors” in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and any subsequent periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements are based on current plans, estimates and projections and are subject to inherent risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from the future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements made in this presentation speak only as of the date hereof. We do not intend to update or revise these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this presentation and do not assume any responsibility to do so. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. We caution you that these forward-looking statements are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control, incident to our operations. These risks include, but are not limited to, changes in the price, demand or supply of our products; our ability to successfully identify and implement any opportunities to expand sales of water, byproducts, and other non-potassium-related products or other revenue diversification activities; challenges to our water rights; our ability to comply with debt covenants; our ability to expand Trio® sales internationally and manage associated risks; our ability to successfully identify and consummate profitable growth opportunities; the cost of, and our ability to successfully execute, any strategic projects; declines or changes in agricultural production or fertilizer application rates; declines in the use of potassium-related products or water by agricultural industry participants and oil and gas companies; further write-downs of our assets; circumstances that disrupt or limit production; changes in reserve estimates; environmental risks; and changes in government regulations, including environmental and mining regulations, the enforcement of those regulations, and governmental policy changes. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results and plans could differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. Certain data and other market information used in this presentation are based on independent industry publications, government publications and other published independent sources. Although we believe these third-party sources are reliable as of their respective dates, we have not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of this information. The industry in which we operate is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, which could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed in these third-party publications. Safe Harbor Safe Harbor 2

Diversified and Strategic Assets Across Several Industries Variety of products, by-products, and markets Well located production provides domestic competitive advantage Essential Products and Services Consistent need for balanced crop and feed nutrients (KCl and Trio®) KCl for industrial applications Significant water rights serving drilling activity in the Permian Basin By-products (salt, magnesium chloride, heavy brine) and oilfield services (high-speed mixing, trucking) enhance our assets Balance Sheet Strength Strong balance sheet allows Intrepid to explore additional high-margin and accretive opportunities inside and outside its fence Vision Entrepreneurial approach to identifying opportunities to diversify cash flows and increase revenue Alignment Members of the management team are substantial shareholders 3 MORE THAN JUST A POTASH COMPANY

diversified production profile 2018 Productive Capacity(1)(2) (tons) 5 Potash Trio® Salt(3) Magnesium Chloride Intrepid also produces or sells: Water Heavy Brine Oilfield Services High-speed Mixing Trucking Currently building additional magnesium chloride ponds to increase storage and top end of productive capacity by 20,000 tons Productive capacity as reported and defined in Intrepid’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. Intrepid is not currently producing at rates equal to productive capacity. Intrepid’s evaporative capacity for salt currently exceeds loadout capacity. High end reflects evaporative capacity, low end reflects capacity with current loadout assets. Total tons: 1,395,000 – 1,820,000 Excluding Water and Brine Water Sales 300,000 – 420,000 400,000 550,000 – 700,000 145,000 – 300,000

Strategic locations provide access to Diverse markets Sole domestic potash producer within a US market that is heavily dependent on potash imports One of only two langbeinite (Trio®) producers in the world Nearby oil and gas basins provide access to oilfield service companies and create water, by-product, and industrial potash sales opportunities Intrepid Production Facility States that received potash and/or Trio® from Intrepid in 2017 500 mile radius from mines (area of potash pricing advantage for Intrepid) 6 Major oil & gas basins near Intrepid’s assets (Permian, Eagle Ford, Barnett, Paradox, San Juan, DJ-Niobrara, Uinta/Piceance, Green River, Woodford, Granite Wash, & Powder) Wendover Moab Carlsbad

Compelling Fundamentals for crop nutrients Global Population (bln) (1) Global Middle Class (bln) (2) +29% Food Production (Index) (3)(4) Nutrient Consumption (Mt NPK) (3) Arable Land/Person (ha/person) (3) Potash is Essential for Farmers to Increase Yields +60% +58% 8 Note: Percentage changes in the above graphs reflect the cumulative change over the respective timeframes shown Sources: United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs: World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision Global Economy and Development at Brookings: The Unprecedented Expansion of the Global Middle Class Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision 2005 is indexed as 100 166 231 263 2005 2030 2050 1.8 3.8 5.4 2009 2020 2030 7.6 8.6 9.8 2017 2030 2050 100 138 160 2005 2030 2050 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 2009 2018 2030 2050

Global potash Production, Capacity & Price World Potash Production, Capacity & Consumption(1) 9 1986-2006 Price CAGR: 5% Industry supply-constrained in 2008, demonstrating true operational capacity Overcapacity Has Not Always Led To Oversupply and Price Deterioration Source: Industry consultants, company estimates Prices for Standard KCl FOB Vancouver, which reflects global market price levels. (2) $60 $160 ‘ - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018F 000 tons KCl World Potash Production World Potash Capacity World Potash Consumption $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018F Price per short ton

Sources : Industry consultants, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NOAA National Climatic Data Center. Potash consumption is shown in marketing years (July – June) and includes MOP, SOP, and Mg-SOP, converted to KCl-equivalent tons based on K2O content. KCl equivalent consumption has remained relatively constant with an annual volatility of approximately 9.1 percent over the past 30 years. Corn acres planted in the U.S. in the years 2014 through 2018 were 90.6, 88.0, 94.0, 90.2 and 89.1 million acres. (2018 is Sept. USDA forecast) 1982: Recession leads to lower consumption; payment-in-kind program reduces planted acres Major droughts/floods in Corn Belt Droughts Floods 2001- mid 2008: Global economic expansion leads to increased demand (2006 had delayed Chinese negotiations) U.S. potash Consumption Remains Steady & Robust U.S. Potash Consumption 10 2008: Global financial crisis $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 $ per Bushel KCl Equivalent Tons ('000) KCl Equivalent Tons Average Consumption Corn Price Soybean Price 9,445

Includes: Barley Citrus Corn Cotton Hay Nuts Potatoes Rice Soybeans Tobacco Wheat Focused sales efforts into agricultural markets for maximum netbacks High-speed mixing and trucking services are generating new sales opportunities into industrial markets Dedicated feed salesman working closely with strategic partner to increase volumes in a higher margin segment Serving Diverse Markets FOR Potash Includes: Cattle Pet Food Pork Poultry Includes: Oil & Gas Flux Manufacturing Potash Sales Mix (1) 13 Tons Sold Agricultural Feed Industrial 2013-2016 figures are pro forma sales estimates to conform to our current annual production capacity of 390,000 tons. 2017 and 2018 figures are actual sales mix and tons sold for the period. 49% 43% 62% 81% 77% 82% 37% 44% 26% 9% 10% 7% 14% 13% 12% 11% 13% 11% - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1H 2018

2018 advantage +35% (1) Average net realized sales price per ton is a non-GAAP financial measure calculated as potash gross sales less freight costs, divided by the number of tons sold in the period. Average net realized sales price advantage is a non-GAAP financial measure calculated by us as the difference between our average net realized sales price and the combined estimated average net realized sales prices of The Mosaic Company (MOS) and Nutrien Ltd. (formerly Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (POT) and Agrium Inc. (AGU)) (NTR), based on publicly available information and Intrepid estimates. See the non-GAAP reconciliations set forth in in Appendix B of this presentation for additional information. US Production: intrepid’s Competitive Advantage Close-to-market strategy Freight advantage Diverse markets with premium pricing Strong customer relationships +20% or higher in 13 of last 14 years Potash Average Net Realized Sales Price Advantage (1) Provides more top-line potash revenue per ton than average of North American competitors 14 $162 $179 $194 $486 $541 $363 $472 $454 $382 $332 $339 $195 $238 $249 $131 $136 $152 $398 $391 $303 $380 $399 $309 $249 $242 $150 $163 $184 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1H 2018 Intrepid Average of North American Competitors

Growing our trio® market Potassium, Magnesium and Sulfur in one delivery mechanism Low-chloride potassium crop nutrient ideal for high-value crops Immediately available nutrients Strong solubility profile – delivers nutrients when the plants need them 100% macronutrients Organic – OMRI® listed and California Department of Food Agriculture approved for organic farming High magnesium content – ideal for magnesium deficient soils Trio® Marketing Benefits of Trio® Reliable and responsive supplier Expanded warehouse footprint in United States Right-sizing international efforts to focus on higher netback regions with more favorable freight rates Educating market on benefits of Trio® compared to other magnesium fertilizers Potential to improve freight economics by focusing on single customer/single port shipments 16

Trio® is currently selling for a significant discount when compared to the nutrient value of its component products Value gap for Trio® at current price levels 18 Source: SOP producer filings, internal estimates. Implied Trio® value is based on 42% of SOP pricing and 58% of estimated MgSO4 pricing Average net realized sales price is a non-GAAP measure. See the non-GAAP reconciliations set forth later in this presentation for additional information Value Gap: $135/ton in Q2 2018 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Price per ton Realized Value of Trio® Components Actual Value of SOP in Trio® (42%) Realized MgSO4 component value in Trio® (58%) Trio® Net Realized Price Implied Trio(r) value SOP , 42% MgSO4 , 58%

c Chloride Sensitive Crops Crops that do not like chloride and like the potassium, sulfur & magnesium in Trio®. Oranges Tobacco Onions Grapefruit Almonds Strawberries Cocoa Starch Potatoes Flowers Raspberries Chloride Partly Tolerant Crops Crops that can tolerate some chloride but need it applied before start of vegetative growth; may taste better with less chloride. Grapes Potatoes Bananas Tomatoes Spinach Pineapple Coffee Sunflower Chloride Tolerant Crops Traditional row crops in soils that need the sulfur and magnesium. Sandy soils with magnesium deficiencies. Corn Sugar Cane Cotton Palm Oil Soy Beans Wheat Rice Asparagus Trio® has diverse and growing markets Dragon Fruit Durian Combined 5 yr global production CAGR: 1.6% 5 yr CAGR: 2.6% 5 yr CAGR: 2.8% Production growth rates based on world production from 2009-2014 UN FAO statistics 2.4% 2.0% 1.7% 5.0% 4.2% 4.8% 1.9% 1.1% 2.2% 3.7% 0.8% 0.5% 2.7% 2.0% 3.9% 4.1% 0.2% 1.2% 4.6% 4.8% 5.8% 1.6% 6.5% 2.2% 1.2% 19

Significant acquisitions and drilling activity surrounding Intrepid’s Carlsbad operations has made water a valuable resource in the Permian Basin Highly commercial oil and gas operations Number of drilled but unfraced wells in the Permian Basin has increased 446% since December 2013 and 41% since December 2017(1) Typical frac jobs use $250,000 - 500,000 worth of water (2) Intrepid is ideally located in the Delaware Basin to service this growing market Increasing opportunities for water Number of Drilled but Unfraced Wells in the Permian Basin 22 +446% Source: US Energy Information Administration – Data on number of drilled but uncompleted wells (DUCs) Source: Frac Focus 636 1,040 1,246 1,316 2,464 3,470 Dec-2013 Dec-2014 Dec-2015 Dec-2016 Dec-2017 Jul-2018

Water is generating meaningful cash flow Well-capitalized, experienced companies involved in the Delaware sub-basin of the Permian basin operate in close proximity to our mines and water rights XTO (Exxon), Chevron, Occidental, Devon, Concho Multi-billion dollar acquisitions completed as well as multi-billion dollar drilling programs ongoing Water is generating meaningful cash flow Sales of $10.3 million and cash received of $13.4 million in the first half of 2018(1) Expect $25-35 million in cash from water activity in 2018 High margin potential Low variable costs Minimal capital investment required Based on current sales trend, executed agreements, and announced activity, water sales could generate meaningful cash flow for several years 24 Intrepid had an additional $5.4 million in accounts receivable related to water at June 30, 2018

INTREPID’s reserve summary Reserve Summary (1) Intrepid’s reserves in aggregate contain ~73 million tons of potash and ~51 million tons of langbeinite Long reserve lives provide opportunity for long-term operations 30 Source: Intrepid’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, filed on February 27, 2018 (2) The reserves associated with the Wendover solar evaporation mine reflect the combination of a shallow and a deep aquifer. There were no proven reserves reported for either aquifer because the shallow aquifer represents an unconventional resource and there is uncertainty of the hydrogeology of the deep aquifer. Accordingly, Intrepid agreed with the SEC in 2008 to report the life of the mine as being equal to 30 years. (tons in thousands) Proven Probable Product/ Date Mine Extraction Min. Remaining Recoverable Ore Grade Product Recoverable Ore Grade Product Operations Opened Method Life Ore Tons (% KCl) Tons as KCl Ore Tons (% KCl) Tons as KCl Potash West 1931 Underground 71 102,960 23.0% 19,730 57,170 22.4% 10,710 East 1965 Underground 14 21,620 22.0% 3,640 14,620 22.7% 2,500 HB Mine 2012 Solution 39 18,680 37.1% 6,310 2,190 40.2% 800 Moab 1965 Solution 100+ 29,890 42.5% 11,890 32,110 44.0% 14,800 Wendover (2) 1932 Brine Evaporation 30 -- -- -- -- 0.7% 3,100 Total Potash 30.60% 41,570 30.80% 31,910 (tons in thousands) Proven Probable Date Mine Extraction Min. Remaining Recoverable Ore Grade Product Tons Recoverable Ore Grade Product Tons Operations Opened Method Life Ore Tons (% Lang) as Langbeinite Ore Tons (% KCl) as Langbeinite Langbeinite East 1965 Underground 92 96,120 26 30.0% 28,830 69,370 29.0% 22,160

Mine Closures Due to Depletion Depleted Conventional Mines Mines Currently With Less Than 15 Years Reserve Life Theodore, Amelie, Marie Louis mines- France Pasquasi and San Cataldo mines - Italy Salzdetfurth, Friedrichshall, Bergmannssegen-Hugo, Siegfried-Giesen, and Niedersachen-Riedel - Germany Trona, California Horizon-Amax, Wills-Weaver, Saunders – Carlsbad, New Mexico Carlsbad, NM, United States – Mosaic*, closed Hersey, United States – Mosaic*, closed Boulby, England – ICL Soligorsk I, Belarussia - Belaruskali Taquari, Brazil – Vale Sigmundshall – K + S *Mosaic ceased MOP production at both Hersey and Carlsbad in 2014, though it still produces a langbeinite product in Carlsbad. Sources: Fertecon, Intrepid Potash, and public filings Mine Closures Due to Water Inflows PCA (Patience Lake) (0.8MM tons KCl / yr) Potacan mine (0.8MM tons KCl / yr) Mines with at-risk production K2 Mine Esterhazy Produced 4.3 million tons KCl in 2017 Most recent 10-K indicated more than $163 million costs and capital to mitigate Uralkali Solikamsk 2 Capacity to produce 2 million tons KCl per year prior to sinkhole incident K+S Werra complex Wastewater disposal limits restricted production in 2017 and 2018 (Hattorf, Wintershall, and Unterbreizbach facilities) St. Paul mine (Congo) (0.8MM tons KCl / yr) 1980 1984 1988 1996 2000 2018 2004 1992 1976 Berezniki I (1.3MM tons KCl / yr) Berezniki 3 mine (1.8MM tons KCl / yr) Due to geology, in the 70 plus years of potash mining in the Carlsbad area, there has never been a mine lost to flooding or a water incursion Solikamsk -2 (2 MM tons/yr) sinkhole in Nov. 2014 Global Production susceptible to “shocks” PCS Penobsquis, New Brunswick (0.8 MM tons KCl / yr) 31

Historical Segment Information (1) Costs associated with abnormal production for the three months ended March 31, 2016, and June 30, 2016, include costs incurred in conjunction with the conversion of the East facility to Trio®-only production. (2) Depreciation, depletion and amortization incurred for potash and Trio® excludes depreciation, depletion and amortization amounts absorbed in or (relieved from) inventory. 34 (In thousands) Potash 2016 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Sales 53,695 $ 39,196 $ 35,357 $ 31,246 $ 27,220 $ 27,814 $ 20,711 $ 19,795 $ 27,064 $ 28,188 $ Less: Freight costs 6,551 6,882 6,722 6,505 2,959 3,578 2,864 2,417 3,458 3,276 Warehousing and handling costs 2,154 2,132 2,072 2,081 1,512 1,366 1,173 1,505 1,154 1,412 Cost of goods sold 47,288 32,502 29,027 25,201 20,421 18,822 11,534 11,171 17,476 17,221 Lower-of-cost-or-market inventory adjustments 9,007 2,930 4,856 1,587 - 33 113 405 - - Costs associated with abnormal production and other (1) 650 - - - - - - - - Gross Margin (Deficit) (11,955) $ (5,250) $ (7,320) $ (4,128) $ 2,328 $ 4,015 $ 5,027 $ 4,297 $ 4,976 $ 6,279 $ Depreciation, depletion and amortization incurred (2) 12,233 $ 8,647 $ 8,090 $ 8,966 $ 7,563 $ 6,555 $ 6,567 $ 7,154 $ 7,138 $ 6,129 $ Trio ® 2016 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Sales 19,582 $ 12,644 $ 8,286 $ 10,942 $ 21,112 $ 16,096 $ 11,349 $ 13,510 $ 21,237 $ 18,839 $ Less: Freight costs 3,781 2,049 1,465 2,301 5,762 4,407 3,296 3,755 6,276 5,655 Warehousing and handling costs 510 406 544 1,107 1,258 831 873 1,153 1,118 1,183 Cost of goods sold 12,489 9,348 6,245 8,752 15,452 10,892 7,861 9,642 15,216 14,162 Lower-of-cost-or-market inventory adjustments - - 336 1,658 3,824 284 554 2,111 705 76 Costs associated with abnormal production and other (1) - 1,057 - - - - - - - - Gross Margin (Deficit) 2,802 $ (216) $ (304) $ (2,876) $ (5,184) $ (318) $ (1,235) $ (3,151) $ (2,078) $ (2,237) $ Depreciation, depletion and amortization incurred (2) 1,675 $ 879 $ 597 $ 686 $ 1,699 $ 1,705 $ 1,687 $ 1,693 $ 1,690 $ 1,680 $ 2017 2017 2018 2018

Non-GAAP Reconciliations To supplement Intrepid's consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP, Intrepid uses several non-GAAP financial measures to monitor and evaluate its performance. These non-GAAP financial measures include adjusted net income (loss), adjusted net income (loss) per diluted share, adjusted EBITDA, and average net realized sales price per ton. These non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered in isolation, or as a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. In addition, because the presentation of these non-GAAP financial measures varies among companies, these non-GAAP financial measures may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies. Intrepid believes these non-GAAP financial measures provide useful information to investors for analysis of its business. Intrepid uses these non-GAAP financial measures as one of its tools in comparing period-over-period performance on a consistent basis and when planning, forecasting, and analyzing future periods. Intrepid believes these non-GAAP financial measures are used by professional research analysts and others in the valuation, comparison, and investment recommendations of companies in the potash mining industry. Many investors use the published research reports of these professional research analysts and others in making investment decisions. Following is additional information about Intrepid's non-GAAP financial measures, including reconciliations of Intrepid's non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures. 36

Adjusted net income (loss) is calculated as net income (loss) adjusted for certain items that impact the comparability of results from period to period, as set forth in the reconciliation below. Intrepid considers adjusted net income (loss) to be useful because the measure allows for period-to-period comparisons of its operating results excluding items that Intrepid believes are not indicative of its fundamental ongoing operations. (In thousands) Non-GAAP Reconciliations 37 Note: Intrepid had an effective tax rate of 0% for the periods shown Adjusted Net Income (Loss) 2016 2017 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Net Income (Loss) (18,427) $ (13,398) $ (18,241) $ (16,567) $ (13,678) $ (5,935) $ (1,908) $ (1,389) $ 1,757 $ (958) $ Adjustments Costs associated with abnormal production 650 1,057 - - - - - - - - Compensating tax adjustment - (1,086) - - - - - - - - Restructuring expense 400 1,914 - 408 - 266 - - - - Debt Restructuring expense - - - 3,072 - - - - - - Write-off of deferred financing fees 668 784 431 - 518 241 60 - - - Make-whole payment - - 806 - 794 1,760 448 - - - Insurance proceeds - (1,211) - - - - - - - AMT Carryback - - - - - - - (2,653) Total adjustments 1,718 1,458 1,237 3,480 1,312 2,267 508 (2,653) - - Adjusted Net Income (Loss) (16,709) $ (11,940) $ (17,004) $ (13,087) $ (12,366) $ (3,668) $ (1,400) $ (4,042) $ 1,757 $ (958) $ 2018

Adjusted net income (loss) per diluted share is calculated as net income (loss) per diluted share adjusted for certain items that impact the comparability of results from period to period, as set forth in the reconciliation below. Intrepid considers adjusted net income (loss) per diluted share to be useful because the measure allows for period-to-period comparisons of its operating results excluding items that Intrepid believes are not indicative of its fundamental ongoing operations. Adjusted Net Income (Loss) per Diluted Share Non-GAAP Reconciliations 38 Note: Intrepid had an effective tax rate of 0% for the periods shown 2016 2017 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Net Income (Loss) per share (0.24) $ (0.18) $ (0.24) $ (0.22) $ (0.17) $ (0.05) $ (0.02) $ (0.01) $ 0.01 $ (0.01) $ Adjustments Costs associated with abnormal production 0.01 0.01 - - - - - - - - Compensating tax adjustment - (0.01) - - - - - - - - Restructuring expense 0.01 0.03 - 0.01 - - - - - - Debt Restructuring expense - - - 0.04 - - - - - - Write-off of deferred financing fees 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - - - - - Make-whole payment - - 0.01 - 0.01 0.02 - - - - Insurance proceeds - (0.02) - - - - - - - AMT Carryback - - - (0.02) Total adjustments 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 - (0.02) - - Adjusted Net Income (Loss) per Share (0.21) $ (0.16) $ (0.22) $ (0.17) $ (0.15) $ (0.03) $ (0.02) $ (0.03) $ 0.01 $ (0.01) $ 2018

Adjusted EBITDA Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (or adjusted EBITDA) is calculated as net income (loss) adjusted for certain items that impact the comparability of results from period to period, as set forth in the reconciliation below. Intrepid considers adjusted EBITDA to be useful because the measure reflects Intrepid's operating performance before the effects of certain non-cash items and other items that Intrepid believes are not indicative of its core operations. Intrepid uses adjusted EBITDA to assess operating performance. Non-GAAP Reconciliations 39 (In thousands) 2016 2017 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Net Income (Loss) (18,427) $ (13,398) $ (18,241) $ (16,567) $ (13,678) $ (5,935) $ (1,908) $ (1,389) $ 1,757 $ (958) $ Costs associated with abnormal production 650 1,057 - - - - - - - - Compensating tax adjustment - (1,086) - - - - - - - - Restructuring expense 400 1,914 - 408 - 266 - - - - Debt Restructuring expense - - - 3,072 - - - - - - Insurance proceeds - (1,211) - - - - - - - - Interest expense 2,229 3,000 3,905 2,488 4,421 4,217 1,994 1,061 878 878 Income tax expense (benefit) 2 1 1 (1,366) 5 7 (130) (2,666) - - Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion 14,368 9,841 8,756 9,716 9,323 8,297 8,270 8,877 8,932 7,977 Total adjustments 17,649 13,516 12,662 14,318 13,749 12,787 10,134 7,272 9,810 8,855 Adjusted EBITDA (778) $ 118 $ (5,579) $ (2,249) $ 71 $ 6,852 $ 8,226 $ 5,883 $ 11,567 $ 7,897 $ 2018

Average net realized sales price per ton is calculated as sales, less freight costs, divided by the number of tons sold in the period. Intrepid considers average net realized sales price per ton to be useful because it shows average per-ton pricing without the effect of certain transportation and delivery costs. When Intrepid arranges transportation and delivery for a customer, it includes in revenue and in freight costs the costs associated with transportation and delivery. However, many of the Intrepid's customers arrange for and pay their own transportation and delivery costs, in which case these costs are not included in Intrepid's revenue and freight costs. Intrepid uses average net realized sales price per ton as a key performance indicator to analyze sales and pricing trends. Average Net Realized Sales Price and Average Net Realized Sales Price Advantage (In thousands), except per ton amounts Non-GAAP Reconciliations 40 Potash: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1H Sales 150,381 $ 138,482 $ 188,006 $ 362,703 $ 250,887 $ 312,088 $ 392,331 $ 402,382 $ 284,831 $ 334,323 $ 217,467 $ 159,494 $ 95,540 $ 55,246 $ Freight costs 9,261 8,122 14,271 10,318 13,060 18,021 18,470 21,396 20,796 30,615 18,262 26,661 11,818 6,735 Subtotal 141,120 130,360 173,735 352,385 237,827 294,067 373,861 380,986 264,035 303,708 199,205 132,833 83,722 48,511 Divided by: Tons sold (in thousands) 869 729 893 724 440 810 793 839 692 915 587 681 352 195 Average net realized sales price per ton 162 $ 179 $ 194 $ 486 $ 541 $ 363 $ 472 $ 454 $ 382 $ 332 $ 339 $ 195 $ 238 $ 249 $ Estimated average net realized sales price per ton of North American competitors (NTR (formerly POT and AGU) 131 $ 136 $ 152 $ 398 $ 391 $ 303 $ 380 $ 399 $ 309 $ 249 $ 242 $ 150 $ 163 $ 184 $ and MOS) Average net realized sales price advantage 31 $ 43 $ 42 $ 88 $ 150 $ 60 $ 92 $ 55 $ 73 $ 83 $ 97 $ 45 $ 75 $ 65 $ Average net realized sales price advantage expressed as a percentage 24% 32% 28% 22% 38% 20% 24% 14% 24% 33% 40% 30% 46% 35% Year Ended December 31,

Average net realized sales price per ton is calculated as sales, less freight costs, divided by the number of tons sold in the period. Intrepid considers average net realized sales price per ton to be useful because it shows average per-ton pricing without the effect of certain transportation and delivery costs. When Intrepid arranges transportation and delivery for a customer, it includes in revenue and in freight costs the costs associated with transportation and delivery. However, many of the Intrepid's customers arrange for and pay their own transportation and delivery costs, in which case these costs are not included in Intrepid's revenue and freight costs. Intrepid uses average net realized sales price per ton as a key performance indicator to analyze sales and pricing trends. Average Net Realized Sales Price – Trio® (In thousands), except per ton amounts Non-GAAP Reconciliations 41 Trio: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Sales 7,348 $ 7,557 $ 5,669 $ 5,140 $ 17,761 $ 11,537 $ 16,958 $ 6,373 $ 14,872 $ 17,340 $ 11,928 $ 6,776 $ 15,984 $ 13,418 $ 10,225 $ 7,589 $ Freight costs 2,147 1,933 1,273 1,470 6,324 2,644 2,859 994 2,343 2,088 1,995 1,984 4,387 3,239 2,435 1,670 Subtotal 5,201 5,624 4,396 3,670 11,437 8,893 14,099 5,379 12,529 15,252 9,933 4,792 11,597 10,179 7,790 5,919 Divided by: Tons sold (in thousands) 48 52 32 27 93 47 50 17 38 45 40 25 70 63 45 27 Average net realized sales price per ton 108 $ 109 $ 137 $ 137 $ 123 $ 188 $ 283 $ 323 $ 330 $ 338 $ 246 $ 190 $ 167 $ 162 $ 173 $ 222 $ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Sales 13,627 $ 10,869 $ 16,230 $ 9,897 $ 10,485 $ 10,029 $ 11,135 $ 17,285 $ 16,479 $ 14,485 $ 9,399 $ 11,117 $ 14,378 $ 26,145 $ 18,138 $ 17,405 $ Freight costs 3,108 2,241 2,625 1,895 1,967 1,532 1,918 2,351 2,631 2,175 1,453 1,801 2,271 4,264 3,079 2,995 Subtotal 10,519 8,628 13,605 8,002 8,518 8,497 9,217 14,934 13,848 12,310 7,946 9,316 12,107 21,881 15,059 14,410 Divided by: Tons sold (in thousands) 52 39 54 28 28 26 27 43 39 35 22 27 36 62 43 41 Average net realized sales price per ton 204 $ 222 $ 251 $ 287 $ 302 $ 322 $ 336 $ 347 $ 351 $ 359 $ 353 $ 345 $ 340 $ 350 $ 351 $ 354 $ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Sales 26,292 $ 16,558 $ 11,695 $ 15,171 $ 19,582 $ 12,644 $ 8,286 $ 10,942 $ 21,112 $ 16,096 $ 11,349 $ 13,510 $ 21,237 $ 18,839 $ Freight costs 3,706 2,420 1,773 2,561 3,781 2,049 1,465 2,301 5,762 4,407 3,296 3,755 6,276 5,655 Subtotal 22,586 14,138 9,922 12,610 15,801 10,595 6,821 8,641 15,350 11,689 8,053 9,755 14,961 13,184 Divided by: Tons sold (in thousands) 62 37 26 38 50 33 25 38 76 59 43 51 77 69 Average net realized sales price per ton 367 $ 383 $ 379 $ 330 $ 316 $ 320 $ 274 $ 230 $ 202 $ 198 $ 187 $ 190 $ 194 $ 191 $ 2018 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2016 2013 2014 2017