Exhibit 99.1

| Investor Presentation December 2010

| Certain statements in this presentation, and other written or oral statements made by or on behalf of us, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Statements regarding future events and developments and our future performance, as well as management’s expectations, beliefs, plans, estimates or projections relating to the future, including statements regarding guidance, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of these laws. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, there can be no assurance that the expectations will be realized. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control that could cause actual results to differ materially and adversely from such statements. These risks and uncertainties include: changes in the price of potash or Trio®; operational difficulties at our facilities; the ability to hire and retain qualified employees; changes in demand and/or production of potash or Trio®/langbeinite; changes in our reserve estimates; our ability to achieve the initiatives of our business strategy, including but not limited to the development of the HB Solar Solution Mine as a solution mine and the further development of our langbeinite recovery assets; changes in the prices of our raw materials, including but not limited to the price of chemicals, natural gas and power; fluctuations in the costs of transporting our products to customers; changes in labor costs and availability of labor with mining expertise; the impact of federal, state or local government regulations, including but not limited to environmental and mining regulations, and the enforcement of such regulations; competition in the fertilizer industry; declines in U.S. or world agricultural production; declines in oil and gas drilling; changes in economic conditions; adverse weather events at our facilities; our ability to comply with covenants inherent in our current and future debt obligations to avoid defaulting under those agreements; disruptions in credit markets; our ability to secure additional federal and state potash leases to expand our existing mining operations; governmental policy changes that may adversely affect our business and the risk factors detailed in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Please refer to those filings for more information on these risk factors. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this presentation, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as the result of future events, new information or otherwise. Unless the context otherwise requires, when we use ‘‘Intrepid,’’ ‘‘our,’’ ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘us’’ during this presentation, we are referring to Intrepid Potash, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Information 2

| Intrepid Potash Strategically Located, Potash-Only Company Intrepid currently has an intense margin focus: Improve reliability and efficiency Capital investment to increase recoveries and productivity which is designed to lower per ton production cost Innovate production methods Strategic marketing 3 Florida New Mexico Texas Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska South Dakota Montana Wyoming Colorado Utah Idaho Arizona Nevada Washington California Oregon Kentucky Maine New York Pennsylvania Michigan Vermont New Hampshire Virginia West Virginia Ohio Indiana Illinois North Carolina Tennessee South Carolina Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Missouri Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin Georgia North Dakota HB Solar Solution Mine Developmental Asset Operating Solar Evaporation Solution Mine Operating Conventional Mine North Mine Developmental Asset ® Intrepid’s production focus combined with potash fundamentals delivers long-term margin opportunity

| Company Overview The largest U.S. producer of potassium fertilizer Only western world producer created and dedicated solely to potash-related products Supplies ~1.5% of global demand and ~9.4% of U.S. demand 1 of 2 global producers of sulfate of potash magnesia, marketed as Trio® 5 active production facilities Productive capacity of ~0.9 million tons of potash and ~0.2 million tons of Trio®, with operating rates typically at 85 to 90 percent of productive capacity Additional development and brownfield productive capacity of both potash and Trio® expected within 2 – 3 years Development projects are designed to increase reliability, recoveries and production and therefore lower Intrepid’s per ton production cost Balance sheet and cash from operations provide flexibility and stability 4

| 5 Solid Financial Performance EBITDA(1) (In millions) Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2010 (1) This is a financial measurement not calculated based on U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Non GAAP). Non-GAAP reconciliation available in the appendix to this presentation. Net Income (In millions) Earnings Per Share (Diluted) Cash and Investments $126 million Total Assets $811 million Debt Outstanding $ - Stockholders’ Equity $739 million Availability Under the Credit Line $125 million $20.8 $14.5 $26.6 $13.3 $27.1 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5 $0.6 $0.7 $0.8 $0.9 $1.0 $0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0 Q3 09 Q4 09 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10 $13.3 $12.3 $11.8 $3.7 $11.7 Q3 09 Q4 09 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10 $0.13 $0.09 $0.16 $0.05 $0.16 Q3 09 Q4 09 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10

| Bullish sentiment in the agricultural market is helping to fuel the fertilizer market The agricultural demand cycle in the United States has returned to normal Farmers recognize the need and value of potassium Commodity prices are very supportive of farmer economics The economics of incremental marginal production by farmers supports the concept of maximum fertilization rates Potash inventories appear extremely low at the dealer level exiting the fall Majority of agricultural commodity values have moved higher into 2011 Demand for product remains steady, even as fall application winds down Truck deliveries into the Mid-West remain strong Producers attempting to get caught up on orders Dealers preparing for spring application season 6 Current Potash Market

| Supply and Demand Dynamics Are Influencing Marketing Decisions Intrepid is fully committed on granular potash production through mid-December and is currently sold out of granular Trio® Intrepid decided to hold off on taking new rail orders until it is are caught up on backlog of rail shipments Any new orders from Intrepid’s facilities are at spot prices Potassium prices have recently moved higher 7 3Q 2010 Average Net Realized Sales Granular Sales Price Effective October 1, 2010 Granular Sales Price Effective October 15, 2010 Granular Sales Price Effective November 1, 2010 Potash $343 per ton $380 per ton $435 per ton $485 per ton Trio® $173 per ton $211 per ton $246 per ton $246 per ton Note: The net impact of these price increases is realized approximately three months after their effective date, as Intrepid typically has a certain amount of product already committed for later rail delivery at the time it announces a price increase. Competition for sales of standard potash remains robust and is impacting Intrepid’s ability to raise its standard potash sales price. Intrepid is operating its plants and managing its sales function to fully participate in the current bullish agricultural market

| Supply and Demand Fundamentals Lead to the Current Pricing Environment U.S. Mid-West (fob warehouse) $510-515 spot Saskatchewan (fob mine) $475-480 spot E.C.L. America cfr $400-410 spot SE Asia cfr $420 spot W. Europe (cfr import) $439-442 spot India (cfr Indian port) (standard) $370 contract as of Nov. 2010 8 Granular Muriate of Potash (MOP) Mid-West Pricing Mid-West Granular MOP ($/ton) Sources: Green Markets, Fertecon, International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI). Example Prices ($ / ton) Dec. 2006: Berezniki 1 mine flood removes 1.3MM tons of KCL 1991: Collapse of Soviet Union 2006: Canpotex concludes pricing negotiations with China 1997: Potacan mine flood removes 0.8MM tons of KCL 1986: Berezniki 3 mine flood removes 1.8MM tons of KCL 2000: Intrepid Acquisition of Moab 2004: Intrepid Acquisition of Carlsbad and Wendover Nov. 2008: Global buyer stand-off and significant reported production curtailments Aug. 2008: Record low potash inventories Dec. 2009: BPC announces $318 per ton to China Feb. 2010: BPC raises spot price to $366 per ton on uptick in demand Oct. 2010: PCS announces price increase to $515 per ton FOB Mid-West warehouse 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

| Potash Is Well Positioned to Gain Greater Share of Nutrient Spending 9 Little indication on the horizon of a major price shock from nitrogen given the relatively flat natural gas strip Nitrogen price and natural gas curve have diverged Sources: Green Markets, Bloomberg NYMEX Futures 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Prices Indexed to January 2000 DAP N.O Barge Nat Gas HH Urea U.S. Gulf Potash Midwest

| Few Deposits, Fewer Global Producers 10 2008 & 2009– MM KCL Equivalent Tons (2) (3) (2) (2,5) Sources: Public filings and select country data from Fertecon (1) Mosaic’s fiscal year ends on May 31, data has been adjusted to reflect calendar year (2) PCS has ownership stake. (3) PCS markets Intrepid Potash’s products exclusively outside North America. (4) Compass Minerals produces potassium sulfate (SOP), which does not compete directly with MOP. Compass Minerals’ SOP is produced both directly and by reprocessing MOP purchased from other producers. Estimated reprocessed production is excluded from the figures for Compass Minerals. (5) Estimate for 2009 production. (1) (4) Production Share Canpotex BPC 1.5% 2009 2008 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PCS Mosaic Agrium Belaruskali Uralkali K + S Silvinit ICL China APC Intrepid SQM Vale Compass PCS Affiliates BPC Canpotex RoW Intrepid 32.1% 18.6% 19.2% 28.6%

| Potash Deliveries Track Population Growth 11 In spite of financial crisis and slower world economy, population growth continues Utilizing the 1.1% growth rate, provided by the US Census Bureau, in world population of 6.9 billion people: Each year – 75 million more people or approximately nine more New York Cities This would require an additional 40 million acres of arable land (1.2x the farmland in Iowa)(1) A world yield increase of 1.1% per year, to maintain current rates of arable land Sources: Fertecon, US Census Bureau. (1) State Data Center of Iowa; 2006 estimate. Collapse of Soviet Union Potash Deliveries 5-Year Forward CAGRS (2008 – 2012) 5.0% China 5.7% Brazil Historical Global Population or Potash Delivery Trendline 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008E 2011E (000s Tons of Delivery in KCL Equivalent) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Global Midyear Population (in billions) World World ex. FSU

| Fundamentals of Increasing Population Continue to Drive Grain Demand Over the Long-Term 12 Note: Grains include corn, wheat, barley, oats and sorghum. Stock to use ratio is average inventory / consumption for that year; data updated monthly. Sources: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), USDA, Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI,) International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), Fertecon. (1) Futures prices based on closing price of Chicago Board of Trade futures contracts as of 11//10; futures prices for December delivery in forecast years. Hectares of Arable Land per Person Hectares per person Crop Prices Over Time(1) World Grain Production and Stock to Use Ratios Grain Production Stock to Use Ratio 5 Year Average Fall 2010 Futures Soybeans: $8.40 $12.39 Wheat: $5.14 $6.48 Corn: $3.45 $5.38 0.38 0.32 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010E 2020E 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 E Stocks to Use Ratio Grain Production (Millions of Tons)

| United States Potash Consumption 13 Sources : Fertecon, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Potash consumption is shown in fertilizer years (July – June). Grains stocks include: Barley, Corn, Oats, Sorghum, Wheat Potash fertilizer consumption has remained relatively constant, with an annual volatility of approximately ten percent, over the past 27 years Corn acres planted in the U.S. were 93.5MM acres in 2007, 86.0MM acres in 2008, 86.5MM acres in 2009 and are estimated to be 88.2MM acres in 2010 1982: Recession leads to lower consumption; Payment In Kind program reduces planted acres 1991-1997: Low grain stocks lead to increased consumption 1998: Russian financial crisis impacts world markets 2001- mid 2008: Global economic expansion leads to increased demand (2006 delayed Chinese negotiations) 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Grains Stocks to Use Ratio KCL Tons ('000) FERTECON U.S. Potash Consumption and Grains Stocks to Use Ratio KCL Tons Stocks to Use Ratio

| Commodity Prices Have Moved Higher 14 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Commodity Price Levels Expressed as % of Jan. 4, 2010 Prices Lean Hogs Live Cattle No. 2 Yellow Corn Soybeans Wheat No. 11 Sugar *5 Day Rolling Average of BenchmarkFutures Contracts: Corn, Wheat, Hogs and Cattle Dec. 2010; Soybeans-Nov. 2010; Sugar-Mar. 2011 Historic Future Sources: Bloomberg, CME

| Strong Returns for Growers 15 - Non-land fixed costs include: labor, opportunity cost of unpaid labor, taxes, insurance, general overhead, and machine and equipment expenses. - Other variable costs include: seed, chemicals, fuel, lube, electricity, repairs, water, interest, custom operations, and drying. - Land costs are shown as the rental rate of land (opportunity cost). - Corn Farm Price is Dec. futures price minus $0.30 basis. - Potash consumption in shown in fertilizer years (2009/2010 included under 2009). Data is estimated for 2010. Sources: USDA, Fertecon, Intrepid Potash®. . Corn Farm Price Potash (5%) Land (23%) Non-Land Fixed Costs (26%) Other Variable Costs (32%) Phosphate (4%) Per Bushel Return Historical Corn Input Costs and Price US Potash Fertilizer Consumption $ per bushel Potash Consumption (KCL tons ‘000) Nitrogen (9%) As of 11/29/10 2011F Farm Price $ 5.08 $ 4.77 Gross Margin $ 1.63 $ 1.33 Input Costs Potash $ 0.18 $ 0.17 Nitrogen $ 0.31 $ 0.30 Phosphate $ 0.15 $ 0.14 Other Fertilizer $ 0.03 $ 0.04 Other Variable $ 1.09 $ 1.08 Non-Land $ 0.89 $ 0.87 Land $ 0.81 $ 0.84 Total $ 3.45 $ 3.44 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010F 2011F

| Farmers Understand the Agronomic Benefits of Potash Potash application rates were down in 2008 and 2009 A robust 2009 crop coupled with lower application rates meant that soils were being depleted of “banked” nutrients A solid 2010 crop likely resulted in a significant nutrient draw down, particularly for P & K. With improved crop economics, land formerly in reserve may be put to work, requiring additional application of nutrients for this new acreage 16 (1) USDA projection for 2009/10 Corn yield of 154.5 bu/ac. . Solid Crop Yields in 09/10 Result in Removal of Nutrients from the Soil (1) 2007 average K 2 O Application: 43.6 lbs/Acre 2007 average K 2 O Removal: 55.8 lbs/acre 2007 average K 2 O Balance: - 12.2 lbs/acre - 20.0 - 10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Lbs of K 2 O Per Acre US K 2 O Balance: 1987 - 2007 Application Removal Balance Source: IPNI Preliminary Nutrient Use Geographic Information System - 2010

| Ethanol Has Become a Steady State Demand Driver Ethanol demand has driven growth in corn use over the last decade Other uses have remained relatively flat Ethanol expected to grow to approximately 35% of total corn use USDA forecast assumes some imports are used to meet mandates; if mandates are met entirely with US ethanol, use would be 200 to 400 million bushels more each year, leveling of at 5.3 billion bushels in 2015* 17 *assuming industry average yield of 2.8 gal/bu Ethanol for Fuel CAGR 1999-2010 2010-2020 22.2% 1.8% - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Million Bushels USDA Projected US Corn Utilization Exports Ethanol for fuel FSI except ethanol Feed & residual Source: USDA 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

| Why consider an investment in Intrepid Potash ? Strong Long-Term Industry Fundamentals The Only Western World Potash Pure-Play Strategically Located Assets Diversified Markets and Customer Base Well-Defined, Attractive Organic Growth Opportunities that Lower Per-Ton Costs 18 ®

| Strategically Located Assets 19 Average Potash Consumption in Intrepid’s Markets is Greater than 5x of Intrepid’s Average Production Low High Sources: Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO), The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), Intrepid Potash. (1) AAPFCO, Fertecon, USDA. New Mexico Texas Oklahoma Kansas Colorado Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Idaho Washington Oregon Nebraska Missouri Iowa Illinois California Wyoming Utah Arizona Nevada Minnesota Intrepid Mine Location

| The Intrepid Potash Advantage: Strategically Located and Lower Royalties 20 (2) Sources: Green Markets and Fertecon Notes: (1) Based on Full Year 2009 for Intrepid Potash Inc., Potash Corp., Mosaic Co., Agrium Inc. (2) Total COGS include: Cash operating costs including all royalty, profit and capital taxes; Royalties of $20 per ton for Intrepid; Royalty, profit and capital taxes of $17 per ton for N. American Competitors. (3) Intrepid reports “average net realized sales price” which is an operating performance measure commonly used in the potash mining industry. Average net realized sales prices are derived by subtracting freight costs from gross sales revenue and then dividing this result by sales tons. Intrepid vs. North American Competitors Most Recently Reported Year ($ per ton) Intrepid’s Advantage Most Recently Reported Year ($ per ton) (1) Intrepid’s 3.5% net sales royalty rate is significantly lower than royalty and resource tax burden of Intrepid’s principal competitors $151 $37 + = (2) ® $541 $390 $(234) $(197) $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 Average Net Realized Sales Price Total COGS Intrepid N. American Competitors $151 $(37) $114 ($40) ($10) $20 $50 $80 $110 Average Net Realized Sales Price Total COGS Gross Margin Advantage 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YTD Intrepid average net realized sales price per ton advantage (3) 29.00 $ 43.00 $ 39.00 $ 88.00 $ 151.00 $ 54.00 $

| Diversified Markets and Customer Base Intrepid sells potash into three different markets: Agricultural, Industrial and Animal Feed Agricultural represents ~80% of Intrepid sales compared to an industry average of 92%(1) Agricultural primarily consumes granular potash and Trio®, while industrial and animal feed primarily consume standard potash Standard potash costs less to produce Marketing flexibility is an important attribute Industrial is primarily deliveries of standard potash to distributors to oil and gas drillers Baker Hughes U.S. Rotary Rig Count has shown strong recovery over the last 18 months Industrial customers rely on spot market sales and just-in-time delivery Significant competition in the U.S. for standard sales as Canadian producers have accumulated standard inventory 21 Intrepid Potash Sales for 2009 Industrial Agricultural Animal Feed Includes: Barley Corn Cotton Hay Nuts Rice Soybeans Vegetables Wheat (1) Source: Fertecon. FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 YTD Agricultural 62% 69% 82% Industrial 30% 18% 12% Animal Feed 8% 13% 6% ®

| Intrepid’s Focus is to Reduce Costs and Increase Production Flexibility Continual effort towards increasing production rates from existing assets Increased mining and hoisting capacity at Intrepid’s West Mine Underground stacker reclaim Coarse tails recovery circuit Increased mining rates and additional mining panels at Intrepid’s East Mine New wash thickener at Intrepid’s East Mine Current and future capital projects address this focus Moab Compaction Project Carlsbad Compaction Project Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project HB Solar Solution Mine 22 Well before the talk of industry consolidation, Intrepid’s focus was on reducing costs and increasing production flexibility Intrepid has re-invested over $300 million into its assets since 2000

| Constant Improvement and Development of Assets is Key to Intrepid’s Continued Success 23 Productivity enhancement at the West Mine is notable Tons hoisted from 2004 – 2009 have averaged 2.4 million tons per year since Intrepid purchased the assets Through successful execution of capital projects, and associated increased recoveries, hoisting rates are forecast to increase by over 20 percent Mine development work is necessary to continue to operate the assets at appropriate levels Continually evaluating Intrepid’s near-term mine plan to address on-going need to develop mining areas ahead of operations The impact of mine development may be somewhat lower ore grade for a period of time and, in turn, somewhat fewer finished product tons The increased mining and hoisting of tons from the West Mine is key to offsetting lower ore grades that result during development periods, in order to achieve historical production volumes

| Well-Defined Attractive Growth Opportunities to Increase Production and Lower Per Ton Costs 24 Facility Key Expected Benefits Estimated Capex Range for Future Projects (1) Estimated in service date Potash Debottlenecking and Expansion Projects at Existing Facilities Moab Compaction Project Moab Ability to granulate 100 percent of production from Moab Provides flexibility to respond to differing market demands $12-$13MM 2010 Digital Control System Carlsbad Enhance both surface and underground operational performance of facilities Enhance underground safety at facilities $6-$7MM 2010 Additional Production Caverns Moab Provide more brine to solar evaporation ponds Increase production $5-$6MM 2010 Significant Future Recovery & Productivity Projects Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project East Step change in langbeinite recoveries Reduced water consumption Lower East Mine per ton cost structure Added flexibility to product mix $85-$90MM 2011 HB Solar Solution Mine HB Convert inactive mine to low-cost solution mine Utilize solar evaporation to create low cost tons Expected annual production of 150,000 – 200,000 tons EIS process completed fourth quarter 2011 $120-$130MM 2013 2010 Capex budget of $110 to $120 million $50 to $55 million likely to be allocated to sustaining and improvement capital $60 to $65 million likely to be allocated to fund portions of the projects listed below (1) All dollar amounts for future capital spending are estimates that are subject to change as projects are further developed, modified, deferred, or canceled.

| Capital investment of $12 - $13 million Ability to granulate greater than 100 percent of annual production from Moab facility, an increase from the current 40 percent capacity Project allows flexibility in production between granular and standard to meet market demand Compactor is installed and plant tie-ins are in progress Project expected to be complete and in service by end of 2010 25 Moab Compaction Project Expected Project Benefits: Improve initial compaction efficiency Eliminate need for additional product handling Enhance flexibility to product mix IRR expectations of greater than 20 percent

| Intrepid believes the market recognizes the combined value of the nutrients in Trio®, potassium, magnesium and sulfur, and, as a result, Intrepid expects the pricing opportunity in the premium market to strengthen Growing Langbeinite Business Presents a Key Opportunity for Intrepid Intrepid made the initial investment to recover langbeinite from the East Mine through what was effectively a pilot project in 2005 The 2010 Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project is the next step in the development of its langbeinite business Optionality to add on to the project to further increase productivity in the future Intrepid recently hired two full-time employees, including a PhD agronomist, to further develop the langbeinite market domestically and internationally Demand for granular Trio® continues to grow Intrepid has over 50 years of remaining langbeinite reserves 26 Intrepid’s Commitment to its Customers is Key

| Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project Expected to increase Trio® recoveries from 30-35 percent to approximately 50 percent, thereby reducing cash costs per ton Expected to reduce process water consumption Allows for production flexibility through the ability to granulate 100 percent of standard Trio® production Utilizes elements of Intrepid’s existing production assets Ability to increase production capacity in the future by adding flotation circuit to increase recoveries to approximately 70 percent with incremental investment Total project investment of approximately $85mm - $90mm ~$35mm to be incurred in 2010 dependent on certain material delivery timing Attractive IRR of 24 percent at today's Trio® pricing 27 Project Benefits & Opportunities Project Economics

| $120 - $130 mm total estimated capital investment results in $700 per ton capex to reopen an existing mine compared to an estimated average cost of $1,400 per ton for greenfield projects HB Solar Solution Mine expected to be among the lower-cost potash mines in North America Same proven solar evaporation and solution mining technology as used in Moab Will share infrastructure with existing Carlsbad operations Production cost per ton estimated to be $65 to $75 per ton(1) Estimated annual production – 150,000-200,000 tons Filed permit application in March 2008; Proposed Mine plan submitted to the BLM in May 2008; BLM requested Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in January 2009 Production planned to begin ~12 months after permit approval and full production two years after construction begins Total area available to be flooded: 1.3x size of Manhattan 28 HB Solar Solution Mine: Incremental Low-Cost Tons Potash Pillar (1) Based on third-party feasibility study.

| HB Solar Solution Mine: Project Timeline & EIS Process 29 Twenty-one months into the EIS process with the BLM Anticipate completing EIS review process in Q4 2011 BLM has issued its scoping summary report for the EIS and is moving forward on preparation of the draft EIS Received ground water discharge permit for the mine from the New Mexico Environment Department in July of 2010 HB Solar Solution Mine Project Update

| 30 Final Thoughts Strong Long-Term Industry Fundamentals The Only Western World Potash Pure-Play Strategically Located Assets Diversified Markets and Customer Base Well-Defined, Attractive Organic Growth Opportunities that Lower Per-Ton Costs

| Appendix ®

| 32 Conversion Rates 1 metric tonne = 1.102 short tons 1 product ton of potash (KCL or KCL Equivalent) = 61% K20 1 product ton of langbeinite = 22% K20 1 product ton of SOP = 50% K20

| Calculation of EBITDA 33 Non-GAAP Reconciliation Earnings before income taxes, interest, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) is computed as net income adjusted for the add back of income tax expense, interest expense including derivatives, depreciation, depletion, amortization, asset retirement obligation liability accretion, write-off of term loan bank fee and impairment. This non-GAAP measure is presented since management believes that it provides useful additional information to investors for analysis of Intrepid’s ability to internally generate funds for capital investment. In addition, EBITDA is widely used by professional research analysts and others in the valuation, comparison, and investment recommendations of companies in the potash mining industry, and many investors use the published research of industry research analysts in making investment decisions. EBITDA should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income, income from operations, net cash provided by operating activities or other income, profitability, cash flow, or liquidity measures prepared under GAAP. Since EBITDA excludes some, but not all items that affect net income and net cash provided by operating activities and may vary among companies, the EBITDA amounts presented may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies. 2009 2010 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Pro Forma Net Income $ 24,681 $ 14,436 $ 9,520 $ 6,705 $ 11,846 $ 3,602 $ 11,659 Add: Income tax expense 15,196 13,023 6,392 2,294 7,661 2,490 8,187 Add: Interest Expense, including derivative 203 (251) 639 2,147 555 478 430 Add: Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion 3,492 4,256 4,270 5,310 6,539 6,687 6,60 Add: Write off of term loan bank fee - - - - - - - Add: Impairment expense - - - - - - - Total Adjustments 18,891 17,028 11,301 11,301 14,755 9,655 15,477 Pro Forma Earnings Before Income Taxes, Interest Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization $ 43,572 $ 31,646 $ 20,821 $ 14,523 $ 26,601 $ 13,257 $ 27,136

| Calculation of Adjusted Net Income 34 Non-GAAP Reconciliation Adjusted net income is calculated as net income adjusted for significant non-cash and unusual items. Examples of non-cash and unusual charges include insurance settlements in excess of property losses, non-cash gains or losses associated with unrealized derivative adjustments, our abnormal production adjustment, and the write-off of costs associated with the delay in permitting for the HB Mine associated with contractor mobilization and demobilization. The non-GAAP measure of adjusted net income is presented because management believes it provides useful additional information to investors for analysis of Intrepid's fundamental business on a recurring normal basis. In addition, management believes that the concept of adjusted net income is widely used by professional research analysts and others in the valuation, comparison, and investment recommendations of companies in the potash mining industry, and many investors use the published research of industry research analysts in making investment decisions. Adjusted net income should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income, income from operations, cash provided by operating activities or other income, profitability, cash flow, or liquidity measures prepared under GAAP. Since adjusted net income excludes some, but not all items that affect net income and may vary among companies, the adjusted net income amounts presented may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies. (1) Estimated effective tax rate of 39.3 percent for 2010 and 38.1 percent for 2009 2009 2010 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Pro Forma Net Income $ 24,681 $ 14,436 $ 9,520 $ 6,705 $ 11,846 $ 3,602 $ 11659 Adjustments Insurance Reimbursments 14 2 (5) (1) - - - Unrealized derivative (gain) loss (369) (846) 405 (631) (89) (28) (56) Cost associated with abnormal production 1,195 5,179 5,784 9,366 470 - 470 Write-off mobilization costs associated with the delay of the HB Mine - 586 - - - - - Other - - - 440 269 271 127 Calculated tax effect (1) (320) (1,875) (2,356) 3,495 (255) (96) (28) Total Adjustments 520 3,046 3,828 5,679 395 147 43 Adjusted Net Income $ 25,201 $ 17,482 $ 13,384 $ 12,384 $ 12,241 $ 3,749 $ 11,702

| 35 Selected Financial Data Adjusted Net Income (1) (In millions) EBITDA (1) (In millions, except gross margin percentage) Net Sales (In millions) Earnings Per Share (Diluted) This is a financial measurement not calculated based on U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Non GAAP). Non-GAAP reconciliation available in the appendix to this presentation. $43.6 $31.5 $20.8 $14.5 $26.6 $13.3 $27.1 49% 43% 31% 20% 25% 21% 30% Q1 09 Q2 09 Q3 09 Q4 09 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10 $25.2 $17.4 $13.3 $12.3 $11.8 $3.7 $11.7 Q1 09 Q2 09 Q3 09 Q4 09 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10 $88.9 $73.4 $66.4 $73.1 $107.4 $64.3 $91.5 Q1 09 Q2 09 Q3 09 Q4 09 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10 $0.33 $0.19 $0.13 $0.09 $0.16 $0.05 $0.16 Q1 09 Q2 09 Q3 09 Q4 09 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10

| 36 Historical Quarterly Production and Sales Summary September 30, December 31, March 31, June 30, September 30, December 31, March 31, June 30, September 30, Potash 200 201 137 131 112 124 172 165 166 Langbeinite 50 34 42 45 60 45 57 39 32 Potash 204 94 99 80 111 150 243 129 221 Trio ® 50 17 38 45 40 25 70 63 45 Production Volume (in thousands of short tons) Sales Volume (in thousands of short tons) 2010 2008 2009

| 37 Estimated Long-Life Reserves (1) Product / Operations Date Mine Opened Current Extraction Method Minimum Remaining Life (years) Muriate of Potash Solar Moab 1965 Solution 126 Wendover 1932 Shallow Brine 30 HB Solar Solution Mine(2) N/A Solution 28 Conventional Carlsbad West 1931 Underground 130 Carlsbad East 1965 Underground 57 Sulfate of Potash Magnesia (Langbeinite) Carlsbad East 1965 Underground 51 (1) The determination of estimated reserves has been prepared by Intrepid and is based on an independent review and analysis of our mine plans, geologic, financial and other data by Agapito Associates, Inc. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 for more information. (2) The Carlsbad HB Solar Solution Mine reserves are based on the planned flooding of 4,400 of the 21,600 acres of the old mine workings and recovery of potash from the residual pillars only with the brine extracted using submersible pumps. Debottlenecking capacity brings efficiencies and lowers per ton costs

| 38 Intrepid Production Volume History & Outlook Tons (000’s) Intrepid’s Potassium Production Volume Growth Estimated Productive Capacity at Full Operating Rates Historical ® ® 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Potash Production Trio Production Current Estimated Potash Productive Capacity Current Estimated Trio Productive Capacity LRIP Production HB Production

| Sales of Potash & Trio® in the United States 39 Intrepid Sells Potash & Trio® into Multiple Markets & Multiple End Users

| Intrepid Average Net Realized Sales Price Advantage 40

| 41 Potash Salt Nitrogen Complementary Business Agrium Potash Phosphates Other The Only Western World Potash Pure-Play K+S Potash Potash Phosphates Nitrogen Potash Corp Mosaic Uralkali Potash Intrepid Comparables Revenue by Product - North America Comparables Revenue by Product - International ICL Potash Fertilizer & Phosphates Chemicals & Others Advanced Technologies Nitrogen Phosphates Retail Potash sources: Intrepid Potash®, company websites and publicly available 2009 company financial statements. Other 35% 32% 33% 4% 28% 28% 40% 24% 27% 49% 100% 3% 4% 14% 5% 67% 7% 57% 28% 15% 100%

| 42 Why Potash Only? (1) Potash Corp. (2) Potash percentage represents 2007, nitrogen and phosphate percentages represent 2005 figures from Integer Research Ltd. (3) Estimated by Intrepid Potash based on publicly available historic production data. Operating capacity rates for nitrogen and phosphate expressed as percentage of nameplate capacity. Productive capacity for potash estimated based on publicly available historic production data. (4) Includes infrastructure outside the plant gates (e.g. rail, road networks, utility systems). (5) Includes all types of phosphate fertilizer production. Market Structure for Key Fertilizer Nutrients Potash Nitrogen Phosphate (5) Producing Countries 12 ~60 ~40 Key Inputs Potash ore Natural gas Phosphate rock Sulfuric acid Ammonia % of Overall Fertilizer Market (1) 17% 59% 24% Market Share of Top 5 Producers(2) 64% 13% Ammonia 39% Urea 41% Phosphoric Acid 49% Phosphate Rock % of Production Government Controlled(1) 19% 51% 50% Industry Nameplate Operating Rate (2) 85% Potash (93% Productive Capacity)(3) 86% Ammonia 89% Urea 81% Phosphoric Acid 82% Phosphate Rock Time for Greenfield Minimum 7 years 3 years 3 – 4 years Logistics for Greenfield Most Difficult Least Difficult More Difficult Estimated Cost for Greenfield (1,4) $3.4-$4.9Bn for 2.2MM Tons $1.4Bn for 1.0MM Tons $1.5Bn for 1.0MM Tons

| 43 Depleted Conventional Mines Mines Currently With Less than 15 Years Reserve Life Theodore, Amelie, Marie Louis mines in France Pasquasi and San Cataldo mines in Italy Salzdetfurth, Friedrichshall, Bergmannssegen-Hugo, Siegfried-Giesen, and Niedersachen-Riedel German mines Trona, California Several West German / East German mines Horizon-Amax, Wills-Weaver, Saunders in Carlsbad Hersey, United States - Mosaic Boulby, England – ICL Soligorsk I, Belarussia - Belaruskali Taquari, Brazil – Vale sources: Fertecon, Intrepid Potash®, and public filings Global Industry Susceptible to Production Interruptions & Supply “Shocks” Mine Closures Due to Water Inflows PCA (Patience Lake) (0.8MM tons KCL / yr) Potacan mine (0.8MM tons KCL / yr) Mines with Water Inflows K2 Mine Esterhazy Penobsquis Mine, Sussex St. Paul mine(Congo) (0.8MM tons KCL / yr) 1980 1984 1988 1996 2000 2010 2004 1992 1976 Berezniki I (1.3MM tons KCL / yr) Berezniki 3 mine (1.8MM tons KCL / yr) Mine Closures Due to Depletion 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

| 44 Carlsbad Potash Area

| 45 Potash Production and North American Inventory Levels N. American Inventory (000s Tons KCL Equivalent) Sources: IPNI, Fertecon, Intrepid Potash®. Potash Production (000s Tons KCL Equivalent) Global Production North American Production October 2010 producer inventory at lowest level in five years 5,000 15,000 25,000 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

| Nutrient removal of various crops 46 N P2O5 KCl Eq. *Based on 2009 world yield for Oil Palm and 2009 US Yields for all others Sources: UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Plant Nutrition Institute, International Potash Institute, USDA lb/acre* Corn (grain) Cotton (lint) Rice Soybeans Sugarcane Wheat Potatoes Oil Palm Coffee N 115.3 49.7 89.8 167.2 69.3 58.5 144.5 35.2 34.0 P2O5 62.6 21.8 47.2 37.0 43.3 27.0 61.9 70.4 3.4 KCl eq. 73.5 48.8 41.7 94.5 200.4 25.3 382.2 76.8 58.9 - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Nutrient Removal (Lbs/Acre*)

| Removal of KCl by Selected Crops: Steady in the United States - Growing Significantly Worldwide 47 Sources: International Plant Nutrition Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, USDA USA Removal of KCl Equivalent by Various Crops ROW Removal of KCl Equivalent by Various Crops 7,261 8,466 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Thousand Short Tons Rice, paddy Sugar cane Sugar beet Wheat Seed cotton Soybeans Corn 25,291 32,904 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Thousand Short Tons Oil palm fruit Rice, paddy Sugar cane Sugar beet Wheat Seed cotton Soybeans Corn

| United States Harvested Crop Acreage 48 Sources: UN Food and Agriculture Organization, USDA 72.4 68.8 69.3 70.9 73.6 75.1 70.6 86.5 78.6 79.6 81.3 72.4 73.0 72.5 72.5 74.0 71.3 74.6 64.1 74.7 76.4 76.8 53.1 48.5 45.8 53.1 50.0 50.1 46.8 51.0 55.7 49.9 53.6 23.1 23.8 23.1 23.6 21.7 22.4 21.4 21.7 21.7 21.3 20.7 13.1 13.8 12.4 12.0 13.1 13.8 12.7 10.5 7.6 7.7 10.8 0 50 100 150 200 250 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010F Million Acres Sugar cane Sugar beet Rice, paddy Seed cotton Alfalfa Wheat Soybeans Corn

| World Arable Land Decreasing 49 Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization USA Total Area Harvested ROW Total Area Harvested - 100 200 300 400 500 600 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Million Acres Unharvested Arable Land Legumes, Roots, Tubers & Tree Nuts Fruits and Vegetables Fiber Crops Oil Crops Forage Crops Cereals - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Million Acres Unharvested Arable Land Other Fiber Crops Fruits and Vegetables Legumes, Roots, Tubers & Tree Nuts Forage Crops Oil Crops Cereals

| 50 To Reach Recommended Application Levels, Brazil, India and China Must Increase Demand China Brazil India sources: IPNI, Potash Corp. (MM Tons KCL) Goal to attain self-sufficiency of food supply History of under-application of potash Need to increase yields Increasing land use for agricultural purposes ~15MM ~7MM ~5MM 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Current Potential 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Current Potential 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Current Potential

| 51 Fertilizer Use Below Recommended Rates Source: Morgan Stanley, Agricultural Products Research, September 4, 2008. 146% Shortfall 86% Shortfall 288% Shortfall Global Application Rates (lb/acre) 60 112 24 59 17 66 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Current Average Application Rate Scientifically Recommended Rate

| 52 Yield Response at Varying Soil Test Levels Average Yield Response to Potash Fertilization - No data for medium alfalfa yields. Response shown is an average of low and high yield responses. - Avg. relative yield assumes all other factors are non-limiting, yields approach 100% after fertilization, application rates are optimum, and crop response reflects a similar response estimated from many sites and years . Assumes 165 bu/acre yield for corn . Source: IPNI. Average Yield Response to Potash Yield (Bu/Acre) Yields improve as nutrients become available Solid 09/10 yields will remove nutrients from the soil Estimated that 38% of fields are in the low or medium categories 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 % 5% 10 % 15 % 20 % 25% 30 % 35 % 40 % Very High High Medium Very Low/Low Soil Test Level Corn/Soybeans Alfalfa Corn Yield (Bu/Acre)

| Return on Potash Investment for Corn & Soybeans 53 ROI assumes 154.3 bu/acre and $5.08/bu for corn, 43.9 bu/acre yield and $112.08 for soybeans, $376/ton KCL Input Costs for Corn ($/bu) Input Costs for Corn ($/acre) Return on Potash Investment Sources: USDA, IPNI, & Intrepid Potash®. Corn Soybeans Input costs for corn use USDA estimate of 154.3 bu/acre for corn. 2010 Revenue $ 5.04 Gross Margin $ 1.48 % of Total Costs Input Costs Potash $ 0.18 6% Total Fertilizer $ 0.14 5% Other Variable $ 1.09 37% Non-Land $ 0.89 30% Land $ 0.81 28% Total $ 2.93 2010 Revenue $ 777.98 Gross Margin $ 299.01 % of Total Costs Input Costs Potash $ 27.09 6% Total Fertilizer $ 48.71 10% Other Variable $ 168.53 35% Non-Land $ 137.15 29% Land $ 124.58 26% Total $ 478.97 Soil Test Level Application Rate Value of Cost of Return from ROI % of U.S. Fields (ppm) Classification Yield Response to K (lbs/acre K20) Response Potash Potash $/$ 15% 0-80 Very Low/Low 35% 83.32 274.35 $ 25.68 $ 248.67 $ 10.68 $ 23% 81-130 Medium 13% 41.66 101.90 $ 12.84 $ 89.06 $ 7.94 $ 15% 131-160 High 2% 20.83 15.68 $ 6.42 $ 9.26 $ 2.44 $ 47% 161+ Very High 0% 0.00 - - - - Soil Test Level Application Rate Value of Cost of Return from ROI % of U.S. Fields (ppm) Classification Yield Response to K (lbs/acre K20) Response Potash Potash $/$ 15% 0-80 Very Low/Low 35% 122.92 185.61 $ 37.88 $ 147.73 $ 4.90 $ 23% 81-130 Medium 13% 61.46 68.94 $ 18.94 $ 50.00 $ 3.64 $ 15% 131-160 High 2% 30.73 10.61 $ 9.47 $ 1.14 $ 1.12 $ 47% 161+ Very High 0% 0.00 - - - -