Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Osisko Gold Royalties' Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2017 Results Conference Call. After the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this call is being recorded today, February 20, 2018, at 11:00 A.M. Eastern time. Today on the call, we have Mr. Sean Roosen, Chair of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, and Ms. Elif Lévesque, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President Finance. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Mr. Sean Roosen. [Foreign Language]

[Foreign Language] Welcome everybody to the 2017 year-end and Q4 results for Osisko Royalties Corporation. We will be making forward-looking statements. I would refer you to the disclaimer that is found on page two of our PowerPoint that's on our website and we will be following for the course of this call. As we sit here today, obviously, the markets are down. Osisko is trading about CAD12.28. We have a lot of good things that happened in 2017. So I suppose we'll start out the call, there's never been a better time to buy low and sell high, and I've never been more disappointed with the share price but I'm still happy with the company. And as we get started I would point out that we have between cash undrawn debt facility and equities over CAD1.073 billion available for the company to move forward at this point in time. And as we move forward, on page three, in Q4 2017, we had almost 21,000 gold equivalent ounces earned in the fourth quarter. Revenues were CAD32.2 million, with over CAD109 million if you included the offtake agreements, which is 135% compared to Q4 2016 increase. Net cash flows from operating activities of CAD21.5 million, up 68% compared to 2016 for the same quarter. Net loss attributable to Osisko shareholders of CAD64.3 million, which closely reflects the write-down impairment charge that we took on the Éléonore change in mine plan, so these are non-cash attributable losses that we took in the course of the revision of guidance for Goldcorp, on the Éléonore mine plan. This is compared to CAD8.7 million earned in Q4 of 2016. In terms of overall, moving into 2017, as we look back, record year for gold equivalent ounces, almost 59,000 ounces earned, up 54% from 2016. Record revenues…

Thank you, Elif. So on page 11, we're just going to take a quick pass through the 2017 activities. It was a very active year. And I think that as we reflect on it the CAD1.1 billion Orion was probably the largest royalty deal done since the IPO Franco back in the day. As we look back in the year, we closed on a CAD300 million debenture with proceeds being attributed to our tax balances we see today post the acquisition of Orion asset base. And we increased the credit facility to CAD350 million with another CAD100 million of undrawn. So as Elif stated, we have quite a bit of firepower left on our debt component as well. A significant expansion to the royalty and streaming portfolio, we have also added Taseko in addition to Orion and Aquila. We won't go into too many details here, but I mean these are significant assets - added 9.6% stream on Renard, 4% silver stream on the Brucejack gold mine in addition to the offtake agreement that we have there, and a 100% silver steam on Mantos, a copper mine in Chile which is currently in transition. And we expect good things from that asset as we move forward. But also CAD44 million is Gibraltar copper mine stream - copper mine, sliver stream from Taseko. We also acquired the offshore Osisko Bermuda Limited with the acquisition of a gold stream for CAD69.8 million on the Back Forty of Aquila Resources which is an asset of Aquila in Michigan. We also increased our royalty to 2.25% at Barkerville Gold Mines, and that was a pretty good step forward as we're waiting for our resource to come out from Barkerville in the first-half of this year, and a significant performer, we believe, in 2018 and…

[Operator Instructions] [Foreign Language] Your first question comes from the line of Cosmos Chiu from CIBC. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks, Sean, and Elif for the conference call here. Maybe a few questions from me here, maybe first off, on the 2018 guidance, what you put out there was a bit lower than what we'd expecting in 2018, and - but sure I'm looking through the numbers it looks like the difference at least compared to my model here is the timing or the start-up of Amulsar, as you said operated by Lydian International. And also on Éléonore, so I guess my question is on the Amulsar, as you said, Sean, you went overseas to go and visit the asset, how confident are you with that start-up and could you maybe talk a bit about the potential or the - option of the company to buy it back as well?

I'll start with the tactical visit of the site, you know, the site is essentially earth work, particularly it's operations. So, depending on the weather conditions in which they execute this winter, whether it's severe winter or light winter, it's going to guide a little bit on how those earth works get executed. And I think that's going to drive their start-up dates, and obviously when you load a heap leach pad, you're not really sure exactly when returns are going to start, because it takes a while because the lease cycle started and it is somewhat the function of energy and temperature. So all in all, we have looked at what the company has said, we provided guidance that we believe is somewhat conservative, but we've been around to see investors, and we've always tried to provide relatively conservative guidance. And we continue to work with that being our motto. If we get surprised, that's great, but we are - this is the mining business, we're aware of it, and we think that a lot of these figures have some upside to them, Cosmos, but we're not going to put them in the numbers for you right now. We'll wait and see. And in terms of the buyback, I will hand it over to Joe, Joseph de la Plante to give you a bit more insight on the buyback.

Great. Hi, Joe.

Hi, Cosmos. Yes, in terms of the buyback, I mean this is an asset company that is going through construction. I think our current understanding is that we don't expect that buyback to be a priority for the company at this point in time, given both I guess the financial condition of the company and the pricing of the buyback. At this point in time, I would say we're not expecting it to be bought back.

Okay. And Joe, can you remind me again like, when the option to buy back, when does it end?

It's essentially a one day off shift for 50% buyback.

And when is it?

I believe that to be 2019.

2019, okay. And then, may be switching gears a little bit on Éléonore. It's ramping up, but I guess compared to as Elif had sort of mentioned, as compared to the technical model, it's sort of - it's lower than what was previously expected, and so, hence the write-down here. So, after the write-down, Elif, how much book value do you still have on Éléonore? Elif Lévesque: So we're right now sitting at about $300 million.

Okay. And then, can you remind me again, if for us - do you check the impairments once a year? Elif Lévesque: No, it's actually on every period. So, on a quarterly basis, we'd to look at indicator basis of all of our assets.

But I guess as you mentioned now, the accounting rules have changed, you can actually write a backup later on if it turns out to be better than sort of expected? Elif Lévesque: Exactly. So let's say if there was sustained improvement, you approach step up their design capacity, then it's possible to reverse the impairment.

Okay. And then, maybe one last question for me here, Sean, in terms of per diem, it all clearly they've had some issues in the past, in Q4. You know, on the one hand you have royalty on it, so you wanted to do well, and on the other hand, there is a buyback right on that royalty, on that stream. So how would you look at it, Sean, from your perspective at this point in time, and as a possibility or the probability of the stream being bought back eventually decreased?

I think it's probably too early to say. I mean, you're looking at five months' worth of results in a very high grade sort of variable rate deposits. So I think it can take more than five months to come up with an opinion on where they are. Obviously you know, typically underground mines, if we look at Éléonore as an example, it also takes a while to get things up and running, get enough lateral development, and get lined up on sales preparation. I did visit the site, the infrastructure is impeccable; it's a very strong mill. And I don't really see a lot of problems there. It's really more about the execution of our underground development. The market has zero patience for that. In terms of the buyback, we've assumed that if we do get back, we would receive a USD 160 million in December 31 of 2018, and if there's step that to 2019, we would receive over USD 130 million back. So that's kind of how we look at a value of it. However, if things change, and the buyback [indiscernible] the value of that asset could go up significantly, but what we've included in our model assumes the buyback. So I think to make profit for us on our investment, but I would remind you that we still have the uptake agreement that only a portion of it has a buyback on it. So we will have exposure to that asset on a long-term as we move forward. And just the exceptional deposit is going to take some time, and I know that everybody is quite nervous whenever we do a line start-up on high grade asset like this, but having been there, looked down it, and having worked on the geology of it, we're pretty comfortable that in the medium-term, things are fine; short-term it's pumping right.

Great. Thanks, Sean and team, that's all I have. Thank you.

Okay.

[Operator Instructions] [Foreign Language] Your next question comes from the line of Kerry Smith from Haywood Securities. [Foreign Language] Please go ahead.

Thanks, Operator. Elif, for the guidance that you kind of given out for 2018 G&A and business development expenses, it's about 6.5 million bucks higher than what was, say, in 2016 before we had all the one-time costs, but it looks to me like the bulk of that increase is related to the RSUs, would that be correct? Elif Lévesque: Yeah. Exactly. So the bulk of that would be the transaction costs of Orion which is almost $9 million and the rest is related to some of the price adjustments. As we know, the RSUs re mark-to-market on a regular basis. So if the price goes up within a period, actually hits the P&L on a higher level and 2016 year end versus '17 year end, the price went up for share price, so that reflects itself in the P&L. But I think on an ongoing basis, it's safe to assume probably a level of USD20 million, all in which would include the G&A, business development, the back charges that we have. It is a cash basis. Yeah.

Right. So in that USD20 million for this year, how much are you assuming for the RSUs then? Elif Lévesque: So like I said, for this year, they were rather high for the RSUs. So going forward, we're expecting them to be lower, but then again, it depends on the mark-to-market of the RSUs going forward.

And then in the guidance for this year on production, how many GEOs have you assumed coming from Amulsar and Lamaque? Elif Lévesque: From Amulsar actually, we were on the conservative side and we assumed that it's going to go on to production at the end of the year. So we only assumed a marginal GEO from Amulsar, 1200 ounces, 1200 GEOs from the offtake and the stream. And from Lamaque, we did not budget anything.

Your next question comes from the line of Dan Rollins from RBC Capital Markets.

Sean, maybe you could provide a little commentary on what you're seeing out there in the marketplace for new royalties and streams. Are there any other packages sitting around and if so, what is the size of the package that you're looking at and if they're sort of in that $300 million range, how can you do more than 1 or 2 this year with the current balance sheet.

Sure. We are seeing packages coming out of their activity. Obviously, it's times like 2015 and '16 where there were streams being issued every quarter, most of them are to do with other expansions or people taking stuff off their balance sheet that they kind of collected up. And the real opportunities right now are mostly on development projects as we see project financings coming up. So right now, we have firepower, I would argue, Dan for three times on the balance sheet and under our debt facilities for CAD500 million, quite relaxed. We've seen some opportunities in terms of projects that are getting permitted and pending development stage where we would want to deploy. And obviously some of those assets would be in our accelerated group as we see Windfall [indiscernible] that end of the cycle as they move from resource definition to pre-feasibility and permitting and onto mine construction. So there is quite a bit to do. We did lay a lot of the groundwork for growth in 2017, Dan. So it will probably be a significantly less active year than 2017. However, we are going to place the ball on the fairway this year and just very conservative view as we go about. As your point on strategy at current share prices, we do have a specific place. So you'd probably expect to see us maybe take a look at our own stock as a better investment than some of the other market conditions that are out there right now. We have the market, if the market remains where it is on the OR stock, we're probably going to execute as soon as we're out of block to be honest.

Your next question comes from the line of John Tumazos from John Tumazos Very Independent Research.

Éléonore output were only 400,000 ounces. How much would the gold price have to rise from the price effect to reverse the impairment? Elif Lévesque: Well, actually for the reversal of the impairment, we have to look at the same reasons for taking the impairment initially. So it would be actually looking at a big change in the sustainable level of production.

Do you have to get all the way back to 600,000 ounces and does it matter if it's from Éléonore or if it were from exploration series resources? Elif Lévesque: Yeah. As long as it comes from that property, if we do see a sustainable level, they worked to get closer to their capacity, we would redo our trusting.

And John, just to add to that, I think where we see and obviously Éléonore is a camp play and that royalty covers the entire camp. So as exploration begins there, we saw Éléonore as the long-term play and their underground facilities are maturing. I think they have the same situation as we are. IFRS rules don't really take into account anything about what the potential is. It's only about looking backwards. So we think there is significant upside in the asset and we're there for the long-term. But as you know, the drill bit has been very kind to Goldcorp on that project as we were forming, regardless of what's happened on the accounting front.

I could ask one more. Why did you choose Arizona Mining to take a profit as opposed to other things in your portfolio? Is it that you don't like zinc or you just thought?

Let's be clear, John. I'm still for Arizona Mining, but improved in our accelerator model, continues to work with and through some investments. So Arizona had one of the highest gains in 2017 and if we do see that stock go back, we may be a player again. But, we have a 1% royalty there. I am very bullish on zinc. As you saw, we started also sponsors starting up on the metals this year, which is mostly dedicated to zinc assets. So [indiscernible] to get Arizona, I think, is one of the best zinc companies out there. However, what our commitment to the marketplace was, is that we would rotate these accelerator assets as we move through the cycle. We needed to demonstrate to the marketplace that these were not unrealized gains, but realized gains. That's the one thing, we have probably kept the positions up. We saw from a market standpoint and we had to prove that our investment strategy was sound and we had to demonstrate the returns in an empirical way. So that's where we are in terms of what we do and that was the first one that we had and they got through basically the feasibility study and then the permitting cycle. So I won't go too much more, but we're quite supportive of Arizona. I think they've done a fantastic job. Obviously, it's gone up in value since we sold it.

Your next question comes from private investor, George Jay.

I've been a long-term shareholder in Barkerville Gold and predecessor companies. I have a really strong belief of the value, long-term value of the Cariboo mining district. And what I'd like to know is, we, outside shareholders at Barkerville, are curious about, you had drilling going on for the last a year or so with up to 10 drill rigs going. We've had some great intercepts, but at the same time, we haven't had this 43-101 new statement of exactly what kind of an increase we've built in the resource up there. So would you comment on that please?

Well obviously, given the history of resources on this property, we are extremely prudent in terms of what we would put in a 43-101 qualified resource. The definition drilling is still ongoing where we had quite a bit of success to defining resources outside of the previous zones. So we continue to work on that and we are closing up the database and doing wire framing as we speak on that asset. And obviously whatever resource does come out there, we have to be extremely conservative. We have a history of the property. It's narrowing, high grade systems, which are demonstrably hard to manage under 43-101. But we think that we've done a pretty good job of introducing a high level of QA/QC in terms of what's there now and when we do publish the resource, we expect it to be very solid. So you'll see something hopefully in the first half of this year as I mentioned earlier in the presentation.

One more would be, you obviously have a lot of influence on the Barkerville board and encourage Chris Lodder in so many ways. I'd like to know whether you are encouraging him with regard to promotional work and getting institutional interest in Barkerville.

Short answer is yes. Chris has been on the road quite a bit and I think it's really between the legacy issues surrounding Barkerville and the pending resource, that's where the market sits. We're in this market and we'll have to get the resource out to take advantage of all the work that Chris has done. I know he was in Europe last week and he's been significantly working out there as we speak. But we're battling history of the project and I think that until there is new resources published, we're probably still facing a bit of a headwind to be honest.

That concludes our conference call for today. Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to buy low and sell high. Thank you.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.