Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Osisko Gold Royalties Q4 End Year 2023 Results Conference Call. After the presentation, we will conduct the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this call is being recorded today February 21, 2024 at 10 AM Eastern Time. Today on the call we have Mr. Jason Attew, President and Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Frédéric Ruel, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance; and Mr. Iain Farmer, Vice President, Corporate Development. I would now like to turn the meeting over to our host for today's call, Mr. Jason Attew. [Foreign Language]

Thank you, operator. Good morning everybody, and thanks for being on today's call. I’m Jason Attew, President and CEO of Osisko Gold Royalties. I have been around to witness the formation almost 10 years ago and subsequently subsequent growth of Osisko Gold Royalties, I’m very humbled to be taking the leadership reins of the leading royalty company in the sector, and look forward to interacting with all our stakeholders in a positive constructive manner in the near future. Procedurally, I'll run through the presentation and then we will open up the line for questions. For those participating online, you can submit your questions in advance through our webpage. The presentation is available on the website, as well as through the webcast. Please note there are forward looking statements in this presentation for, which actual results may differ. Also the basis of presentation is in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted. I'm joined on the call this morning by Frédéric Ruel, the company's Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer; and Iain Farmer, Vice President, Corporate Development amongst others as highlighted on the slide. When looking at our overall performance for the full year, it is important to note that the fiscal book a record year in terms of deals earned and was very busy from a transactional point of view 94,300 GEOs earned in 2023, representing a respectable 6% growth over the 89,400 GEOs earned in the full year 2022. This number we reported on January 8th, came just below the company's 95,000 to 105,000 GEO guidance released in early 2023. By this time, the challenges faced across our portfolio have been well-documented but worth a quick recap, a sharp fall in the rough diamond prices resulting in the shutdown of the Renard diamond mine, Canadian wildfires, which primarily affected deliveries…

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your first question is from Cosmos Chiu with CIBC. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks, Jason and team. Maybe my first question is on your equity holdings here. As you mentioned, you divested Osisko mining shares. Could you comment on your other equity positions? And to the extent that you can share with us, your intentions of those equity positions.

Thank you. Good morning, Cosmos. Thank you for the question.

Hi, Jason.

And so – yes, we do obviously have some other equity holdings in the portfolio. The majority for which being the Osisko Development, we do hold a 40% interest in a specific development as well as with metals acquisitions limited. And so those are the majority. The rest of the positions we have make up less than very small amount anyway. And so with respect to – I'll just talk about our philosophy around our equity holdings. As I've stated, we had the conversation before customers. We're not in the business to be portfolio managers. And so we obviously make investments in equity that really pivots or as a part of a transaction that involves obviously, a royalty, stream or an economic interest. And so what you witnessed or saw when we divested the Osisko mining block is first of all, we had a really good use of proceeds to pay down our debt. But secondly, we're not providing a lot of value to our partners by essentially being a passive equity holder. So our philosophy is again, we're not long-term holders of these equity positions. We will provide equity to our partners, if is around a catalyzing event, such as an acquisition and or other milestone that advances and arguably preserves our interest as it relates to a royalty stream or economic interests within the Company. So you can see, we have a slide obviously on what our other equity interests are. So people can refer to that. But as I said, we are not in the business of being portfolio managers. We will look at the appropriate time to monetize these equity interests, but obviously working with our partners to ensure that we're doing it in a responsible way.

Perfect. Thanks, Jason. And my other question is just trying to understand your thought process here, as you talk about your five-year projections in terms of growth and specifically, you pointed out that compared to the last sort of target under the old management by 40, San Antonio pain points are no longer included in your the number. I'm just trying to figure out you know, how you went through that process. What what's the commonality between some of these three for example, projects done made you decide to take it out of your numbers and to the extent that you can comment on it, what have you included? I already know, what have you what remains in that number?

Thank you, Cosmos. So with respect to our process, it’s not different. I don't think to any other oil companies when they put out their guidance. We get together as a group. We've got technical evaluations and technical folks that obviously, applying on the disclosure of our partner companies. We very much rely on again the disclosure that we see from corporate, as I remind everybody we're not the operators here, there – our partners are very much closer than we are. But mining is a tough business as you and I both know. And so when we get together to look at again what our guidance should be, we take the appropriate contingencies that we see. And so collectively, what you'll see as I talked about the assets that we pulled out of the five year guidance for the most part a slippage in time lines, of which we don't expect to come in within that five year window. But we do it essentially, probability wait some of the assets on a five year time line. And therefore, we have a lot of assets in that portfolio at Cosmo. So happy to walk you through our thoughts off-line, with respect to what would aggregate into that five year contribution from a geo perspective. But then again, we do take the appropriate contingencies as we see them as a partner and obviously, a royalty or a stream holder with respect to these assets. Q – Cosmos Chiu: Great. Thanks, Jason. That perfectly answers my question. So, thanks again.

Thanks, Cosmos

Your next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Q – Tanya Jakusconek: Great. Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for taking my questions. Jason, being new CEO at the helm. I would like to get a bit deeper thoughts on your strategy or transactions. So first question I have, now that you've improved the balance sheet, what size of the deal would you be comfortable to attacking at this point? So, that's my first question.

Thank you, Tanya and good morning. Thanks for joining. Look from a strategic perspective in 2023 was a very good year for Osisko in terms of transactions, five transactions were done and they're all very accretive and will benefit shareholders go forward. I would see us going forward you have to think -- frequency and cadence around your transactions but there was obviously a big, big chunky one and I'm thinking of the CSA transaction, which aggregated to over US$190 million by the timing including the private placement into it. And so that's obviously, very meaningful for us, to us. So you can think, again, we will as an organization strategically, we obviously want to stay precious metal focused. We will support very good management teams, which we believe making history because it’s is a very good management team and jurisdictions that we consider Tier 1. And the reason why we did that -- we talked about Tanya, we did pay down our debt facility, with the Osisko mining sale, because now we have over CAD 550 million within our facility when timing include the accordion as well to go out and do accretive transactions. So look, obviously, it depends on the flow and the receptivity of our partners here. But you can think transactions US$200 million is not out of reach for the previous fiscal group, but we will also continue to do transactions like in 2023 with US$35 million and then MAC [ph] which gives us some very good deal profile. So if you were to basically bracket, I think from a corporate development engine and corporate development perspective, Iain’s here and you can comment as well. So you know US$50 million to US$250 million I think would be our sweet spot for us for the next couple of years. Q – Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. And then, thank you for that, Jason. And then just on the jurisdiction, you mentioned Tier 1, so you flagged Australia, Canada, the U.S. as great areas to operate. Would you be willing to move out of those jurisdictions? And -- for example do more in Africa, saw that you did something in Ghana. How do you see that in terms of the diversification of your portfolio?

It's an excellent question. Thank you very much. So, we do have the ability to take on more jurisdictional risk, geopolitical risk as I've talked about in the presentation. However, again, we'd obviously prefer to stay in what we call our Tier 1 jurisdictions. We recognize if we did that, our deal flow would probably be more limited. So, we do have to look outside of those jurisdictions. The way I'd answer that question is yes, we'd be irresponsible not to assess opportunities for example in Africa. There's a lot of different places in Africa. We have our own risk ratings associated with it. But at the end of the day what we do as management and sitting in the room here with me and Ian and Michael, Fred and others, is we're effectively just risk managers on behalf of our shareholders' capital. And so for us to go into a jurisdiction that is not what we consider Tier 1, we need a commensurate return to essentially deal with that risk. The other aspect too, as you're very well aware, it really also depends on the contractual nature of the royalty or the streaming interest. We absolutely need survivability and any sort of transaction that's a must for us. So, there's a lot of factors that obviously go into our calculus as we think about putting bids in term sheets in front of companies that are not necessarily in the Tier 1 as we talk about, but to be clear, we have to make a spread more so than a spread -- and in some of these other jurisdictions, more so in the spread that we make an investment in Canada for example.

--find in Africa that fit your risk profile just say it would be smaller in size and say CAD200 million deal?

Sorry, Tanya I think we missed the first part of your question.

I said that would you be looking then for the risk being size-wise in Africa, you see those two smaller push of transaction?

Yes, yes. Look, -- I think again we wouldn't -- we certainly wouldn't bet the farm and use their whole facility to do for example a CAD500 million transaction in a jurisdiction in Africa, that I don't think what our shareholders would want us to do. So, you're absolutely right. It's got to be balanced in terms of the size of the trends and the size of the transaction that we'd be looking at outside of the jurisdictions that we consider Tier 1.

Okay. And then just my final question in terms of the capital allocation, Jason, maybe you can so through for us your priority for capital allocation and with respect to debt versus dividend versus share buyback?

Thank you, Tanya. So, again it follows our typical capital allocation decision tree. So, obviously, we've had a forecast now and analysts to speak to 2024, that's going to generate some significant operating cash flow. Dividend is very important to us and we will continue to obviously pay our dividend. A lot of that is obviously dependent on the commodity prices underpinning our business. So, as I said from a capital allocation perspective, we still do have debt out of our facility. If for whatever reason we can't find accretive deals to do it, our first priority would be pay down our debt and just really, really have an increase in our financial flexibility to go out and do transactions if it's not in 2024, 2025, and beyond. And so beyond that and we're really just looking at how rich and how much cash we are having on our balance sheet. And so if we do get to a point where our balance sheet is very, very healthy and we've got a lot of cash on the balance sheet, we would look to do things like special dividends for sure. In terms of buying back shares that's really dependent on more so our trading price and the capital markets aspect if we do know our fundamental value of the business is. And so with we've got cash on our balance sheet. We do see that we think there's a disconnect with respect to what we think fundamental value is and what the market is quoting us. Yes, we also use it as a tool to go back and buy back share, that again, should accrue over the medium to long-term to our shareholders. So, you can think of the decision tree is quite straightforward and simple. We obviously want to grow the business. We want to grow it responsibly. We're focusing more on per share metrics as I talked about in my presentations, and we will be disciplined with our shareholders' capital.

Okay. And my last question is just, what's the minimum cash balance you people on the balance sheet to run your business?

Thank you. That's a great question, and I'll actually pass it off to Frédéric, our CFO, so he can answer the question much better than I can. Frédéric Ruel: Well, thank you. In terms of cash balance, we will execute the $16 million approximately in the cash balance and use the remaining balance to pay down the debt or do acquisitions.

Helpful. Thank you so much. I'll leave it to someone else. Frédéric Ruel: You’re welcome.

.:

Your next question comes from John Tumazos with John Tumazos Very Independent Research. Please go ahead.

Congratulations Jason, my -- great to have you on board.

Thank you, John.

If I can ask a very detailed question, concerning Trixie, is your charge related to the cash put in for the future stream and excludes your equity in the impairment process that's delaying their earnings report through the end of March?

Yes. Good question, John. I'm going to pass it over to Frédéric, our CFO as well to answer. Frédéric Ruel: Yes. I think these impairments, they must be looked at -- they’re first the investment, so IFRS requires that we look at investments instead of potential impairment are two indicators of impairment, which we believe was the case this time. So, the value of investments was reduced to the fair value at the end of the year. And then for the stream, it's always based on financial models, internal financial models. And in this case, we booked a $23 million impairment on the stream itself

$23.5 million to be exact, John.

So this closure count the equity income offset for whatever OGC calculates? Frédéric Ruel: It's not going to be directly related to the impairment that they might book in their books.

And you likely saw John that Osisko development put our press release as well putting a range of the impairment at Trixie between $80 and $120 million book on their books

Of course. I guess a big quick question, Jason, how big picture would you like to change the structure orientation of the Osisko Gold Royalties? There's the 20 wonderful near-term catalysts you've posted. It seems as though the stock market has a hard time understanding or digesting everything. There's so much progress. And the market is confused, because most of the years you reported a loss, because of non-cash charges. We narrowed Royal Gold Osisko, Triple Flag usually reported profit every quarter. For example, would it be a good reorientation to dividend your Osisko development 40% to your shareholders directly, so that we get a positive value for it. We're having a penalty because they take a write off last quarters.

John, do appreciate the comments. And firstly, why I will like to stress the fact that our earnings and what you see with respect to these unmet needs, these are all non-cash charges. So that's why we direct our investors to our adjusted earnings number. And I do take your comments that confusion does have costs here associated and we have made a number of changes both on the governance side and as well with respect to our strategy going forward, we will never be buying mining asset go forward. I can promise you that. We are going to be a pure-play royalty company that's effectively invest in royalties streams, economic interests in good jurisdictions with good management. With respect to the question on the 40% -- or 40% interest in a Osisko Development, as if we could do a dividend, the challenge as we see it with that because that will actually create them at a capital gain for our shareholders or at a cost for our shareholders to do that. And so we don't think, although, it's something we are certainly considering and we'll talk to our shareholders about that. But we don't think by doing distribution or dividend of the emphasis Osisko Development would be well received given they'll all receive a tax bill associated with a distribution. But open to have conversation with yourself, John and others on options as it relates to again ensuring that we create value on that investment.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Adrian Day with Adrian Day Management. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good morning, and thank you. I had two questions if I may. First one, can you just talk a little bit about? Obviously, you mentioned that you're pretty pure precious metals now, but you also mentioned you've got a lot of base metals coming on. What is your general thinking, general strategy on diversifying into other commodities? How broadly would you diversify?

Really good question Adrian, right, myself and my team and our Board do actually have lots of conversations around diversification. The first statement that I make is, we absolutely want to stay precious focused for the near, medium and long-term. That said, as you just pointed out, our concentration around precious is one of the highest in the group. So we do have the ability to take other commodities and we have taken other commodities. I mean, mostly as we talked about copper coming from Hermosa and the copper stream at CSA will adjust to some degree, again, our concentration of precious. I really think it does depend on the opportunity set that we're looking at. Clearly, if we can invest in a large either expansion or a new development of a polymetallic asset, for instance, that gives us both precious and copper. I'll just use copper as an example. And we certainly would entertain that. But the fact is, now that, again, our team is very much focused on per share metrics. We will be very much focused on value over volumes. So whatever is going to create value for our shareholders, we'd endeavor to look at. So we would look at base metals. We would look like copper. We have a very positive constructive view on the copper environment go forward around the energy transition and decarbonization themes that you're very, very well aware of. Would we go into more esoteric commodities that don't necessarily, you can't necessarily quote them on a metals exchange. I'm thinking commodities like lithium or others, no, we don't think that makes sense for our portfolio right now, given the opportunity that we're except that we're seeing. But certainly on the base metal side, we do have exposure within 180 assets that we do have in the portfolio. But we also do think that there's opportunities to essentially get some of those royalties and streams with some of the base metal assets as well and specifically around expansions or new developments that we see being very important to the energy transition sector.

Okay. But you don't have a particular sort of hard line in the sand where you wouldn't go over x?

We do not, Adrian, but it's something certainly we evaluate as our portfolio shifts over time, but we do not have a specific target saying if we're going to drop below, let's pick the number 80%, we wouldn't go and do the investment. We always look at value first and then look at the other factors such as you're suggesting around commodity mix.

Okay. Super. And then my second question, if I may, in answer to Cosmos Chiu's very first question, I got the sense that there's no particular urgency or it's not a high priority to sell down more of your equity. Is that correct?

That's correct, Adrian. We've got, as I said, the two major ones in the portfolio are Cisco Development and Metals Acquisition Limited, and both of those companies, Metals Acquisition Limited, for example, they just did a big raise in Australia, as you're certainly aware of. And with respect to Cisco Development, they've got a bunch of catalysts, not the least of which a construction permit this year, not the least of which they're going to need to raise capital for their larger builds. So it doesn't make sense. And arguably, it'd be counterproductive for us to suggest that we monetize it. You can think of the Cisco mining situation as a good analog. When we're not providing really any value to our partner companies, after the Goldfields joint venture, we essentially just became a passive shareholder. That's when we'd be looking to monetize or divest our interest, and we obviously dealt directly with the Cisco mining when we did do that and thought it was the right thing to do at the time.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. That helps.

Thanks, Adrian.

Your next question comes from Ralph Profiti with Eight Capital. Please go ahead.

Thanks, operator. Jason, most of my questions have been answered. How much time are you spending sort of planning on origination, and is there a market appetite for origination for new teals, and has there really been anything kind of new and unique that you've seen on the playing field since you started and sort of going around fostering these relationships?

Morning, Ralph. Thank you for your question. So, yes, is certainly the answer that I would say. And again, for people on the line that don't know my history or background, I spent 16 years in investment banking, so I do have some deep relationships. The team has some deep relationships, and our board has certainly some deep relationships across the sector. And so what I would say is there are certainly opportunities for us. And so the first phase of me coming on as a CEO is I thought it was very critically important that we meet all our owners and shareholders. And so for the last little while, Grant and myself have been on the road meeting with all our owners, getting feedback, talking about the strategy before. The second phase, obviously, is around our deal flow and our deal origination, which, again, our team continues to do, and I will pick that up as well. I would say that just from what we're seeing thematically is really around what I talked about before, Ralph, around there are a lot of management teams and or companies that are looking to grow their business. And growing their business around the energy transition theme that I talked about is something that we think will continue to be a theme for some time. So looking at companies that, obviously, want more copper, or have a project that's just a few kilometers away from their headframe or the processing facilities that they'll accelerate their studies for. We have our very entrepreneurial management teams out there that are looking to acquire assets and from the seniors. So yes there's whole origination piece. This group has been doing it for the last 10 years very, very well, and again as evidenced by the five transactions in 2023, record allocation in terms of capital deployment. I think the deployment was very, very smart and going to benefit all our owners go forward. So it certainly will continue, it's not something that the company hasn't done in the past, but we obviously do need to stay current as to trends, cost of capital for all of these parties and their aspirations around growing their portfolios to become as I said leaders in this energy transition piece that we're going to see unfold over the next five to 20 years.

Appreciate the answer. Thanks, Jason.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Brian MacArthur with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Adrian’s -- I'll ask my main question, but maybe to just follow-up on the non-precious metal transactions. You mentioned lithium was something you weren't interested in, but you got pretty interesting lithium royalty. Does it ever make sense to sell a royalty going forward? I mean, our philosophy here is you tend to get higher multiples for precious metals versus base metals, just with those two comments of you not focusing on lithium, what's your view on Corvette? Frédéric Ruel: Well, thank you Brian. I appreciate the question, good morning. Corvette is a very good asset in our portfolio. And so we are very, very fortunate to be a benefactor of holding the 2% of the NSR there. We also have NSRs and any other metals that are found in that region as well. Whether it was conveying to Adrian is I think we have to be very focused as a corporate development team and origination team on what we're good at what we know. And so we know and we want and are focused on precious metals opportunities. As I talked about before, we really need to stay in that focus. So looking at new lithium projects or new projects in that commodity it would depend if it's a really good management team that we've got a history for, of course, we potentially look at it, but I don't think it's something we consider first of all our core competency or something that we would consider doing outside of one-off exceptions. With respect to potentially trading in a lithium, or any of the assets that we have there are not very specific either base or precious, of course, we would consider that what we will certainly do and as I said in my presentations done a portfolio review, if we can actually create value for shareholders, and for example the other commodities that we have in our portfolio, if we see something in other assets, may be precious focused in other portfolios that we did come to a deal with SIM swapping. Yes, that would absolutely make sense for us. It's I would say, it's a lot easier to, to suggest around dramatically than them and conceptually then around the real execution around these transactions, because there was a lot of things obviously involved. You've got tax. You've got new considerations around investments. But the broad answer to your question we absolutely will consider, looking at our portfolio and it does it makes sense and another party's portfolio in Canada. And then, the second question is can we actually realize good value for them, either by trading or monetizing.

Great. Thanks very much for your clarification.

Thanks Ralph. Sorry Brian.

I will now turn the conference back over to Jason for questions on the webcast.

Thank you, Operator. So that's the first question we have is expand on the rationale behind the recent balance sheet actions and comments on your capital allocation going forward? I believe that we've answered that question through the Q&A period. So thank you. Next question from Kerry Smith at Haywood. Jason, do you plan to retire any more debt in 2024? Again, I think we've also addressed that. We as you saw in Q1 or sorry Q1 to-date year-to-date we have retired and paid down another $30 million on our revolver facility. We will continue to do that, unless and until we see transactions that we want to do that and essentially move of the against the revolving credit facility. So we always want to have some capacity and flexibility around that. So but so if we don't do transactions, yes, we will continue to retire and/or pay down our facility, Kerry, thank you for that question. And question from Eric [indiscernible]. Congrats on the nomination and to the whole team, what has been the total ounces produced at Eleanor since started production and around two million ounces of what I'm getting from the team, is 2.2 on Gold bsallpark and is there an expectation to reach 3.5% NSR royalty eventually? I'll turn that question to Iain, since the 3.5% also I believe and commodity length or commodity price based. But to answer the question yes about two million ounces has been produced at Eleanor. And so I'll ask him to comment on the 3.5% NSR.

Yes. The two million ounces in produce were at the top end of the variable royalty rate range for that royalty. And in terms of getting the next bump up on the total production rate is probably a little bit too far in the future to say that that's going to happen at this time.

Thank you for your question, Eric. That's all the questions, operator we have from the webcast. So thank you very much everybody for attending kind of the meeting for the year end Osisko Gold Royalties results presentation. As I said, it's very, very busy day, especially for the analysts that cover. So very much appreciate your attention and the thoughtful questions this morning. And so have a very good week. And we're always available. Our team and myself, are all available, if you'd like to have a conversation on any of our business and our strategy go forward. So thank you very much for attending this morning.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your conference call for today. We thank you for participating. And ask that you please disconnect your line.