Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the OR Royalties Q2 2025 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this call is being recorded today, August 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the meeting over to our host for today's call, Mr. Jason Attew. [Foreign Language]

Good day to everybody, and thanks for your attention this morning, as I know it's a busy reporting week. Procedurally, I'll run through the presentation, and then we will open up the line for questions. For those participating online via the webcast, you can submit your questions in advance through the webcast platform. Today's presentation will also be available and downloadable online through our corporate website. Please note that there are forward-looking statements in this presentation from which actual results may differ. All amounts presented and discussed on today's call are in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted. I'm joined on the call today by Frederic Ruel, the company's VP Finance and Chief Financial Officer as well as my other colleagues as indicated on Slide 3. Taking a look back at OR Royalties second quarter of 2025, we were pleased with our GEOs earned, our cash margin, cash flows as well as our overall debt reduction. OR Royalties earned 19,700 GEOs in the second quarter, a modest step-up over the first quarter of the year, which puts the company on track to achieve its previously published full year 2025 GEO delivery guidance of 80,000 to 88,000 gold equivalent ounces. Recall that we had been very explicit about the fact that due to sequencing at some of our major producing assets, including Malartic and Mantos Blancos, the first half of the year was always going to amount to approximately 45% of the midpoint of our 2025 GEO guidance range. And basically, we're there or modestly above it as of June 30. Needless to say, we're expecting a stronger second half to the year. Of note is that the first half of 2025, there's approximately 1,200 GEOs that were not realized compared to our internal budget due to the higher gold/silver ratio in…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Fahad Tariq with Jefferies.

Can you provide some more color on maybe the second half of this year and where the incremental GEO sales are coming from? The way we're modeling it right now, it looks like it's going to maybe trend the lower end of the production guidance range, but just wondering what we're maybe missing. I think you mentioned Canadian Malartic and Namdini, but is there anything else we should be aware of?

Yes. Thanks, Fahad. So to answer your question, we've been quite explicit about, again, 45% for H1 and 55% for the second half. Most of that pickup will come from a few things. Firstly, as you correctly pointed out and what I mentioned on the call, we expect Canadian Malartic to continue to perform at our internal budget or better going forward given, again, the tails deposition is certainly on track or ahead of schedule. The second thing and probably the most notable thing is we have an expectation at Mantos Blancos for the silver grade. The throughput is obviously quite steady right now at 20,000 tonnes per day, if you look at their disclosure. But what's been disappointing in our end is essentially the silver grade not meeting expectations. So we do expect that the silver grade at Mantos to be trending up over the second quarter. We also obviously have the continued ramp-up at Tocantinzinho and in the second half of this year, Namdini, who is essentially putting the mine through ramp-up as well. That will be a contributing factor to the second half, again, the 55-45% split.

Okay. Great. And maybe just switching gears to corporate development. You mentioned the team is stretched to capacity. Just at a high level, can you talk about if there's I guess, philosophically, a preference for producing versus development stage royalties, just given that compared to peers, OR has, I guess, a lower percentage of producing royalties?

Yes, it's a great question. So obviously, our first preference would be to do accretive deals on producing assets. What we've obviously seen in the market, there's been some pretty significant transactions, and I'd encourage you to talk to those companies that have done those transactions. But those transactions from our perspective, don't meet our economic hurdles for the most part. So we have been involved in the majority of again, the transactions that you've seen printed. We have a number of filters, including, again, the geopolitical profile that I keep talking about. We have to make a decent hurdle for our shareholders. There are a lot of producing opportunities out there that our corporate development team is obviously involved in, but it's incredibly competitive. So we just have to be very disciplined with, again, what we're doing in terms of the economic returns for our portfolio and for our shareholders. With respect to development assets, yes, we are obviously involved in looking at a number of high-quality development assets. But what I would guide you to is our corporate development team is really focused only on development assets that will actually make a difference within our 5-year outlook. In other words, producing GEOs within the next 5 years. So we're not looking at something that's very early stage that could take 15 years essentially to get through all the studies, the permitting, construction and ramp-up. So we really have focused our team on those type of high-quality assets in the jurisdictions that I mentioned earlier that we consider Tier 1.

Your next question comes from Cosmos Chiu with CIBC.

Jason, as you talked about the 5-year guidance, and as you talked about, there should be a new 5-year guidance that should be presented to us early next year. So it's great you've talked about some of the assets that have not or are currently not included in your 5-year guidance. I guess my question is, as you look at your new 5-year guidance, what criteria do you consider? Is it timing? Does it need to be fully financed? Does it need to be fully permitted? I'm just trying to get a gauge and to the extent that you can share with us, what could get included? For example, as you mentioned, Spring Valley is not included. And so number one, criteria; and number two, specifically, what could get included to the extent that you can share with us?

Yes. Thank you, Cosmos. Great question. So we are very vigilant when we're actually looking at our 5-year guidance. And so the broad criteria because it's case by case by asset is we have to have very good confidence and visibility that an asset will actually contribute GEOs over the next 5 years. Obviously, permits are a big factor to it, having a company that's fully financed or visibility to a fully financed solution also would be incredibly important. As we all know, mining is a very, very tough business. So we look at other factors such as social license, such as the track record of, again, our partnering or investee companies. Obviously, companies that have assets in production currently, and I'd just pick out, for example, Hermosa, which is in our guidance of this year -- or sorry, of our 5-year outlook. Again, that's a multi-asset, multibillion-dollar company with very good financial breadth and technical acumen. So those are the type of criteria that we look at when we will update the market in February as to, again, what will be included and what will not. I will tell you right now, more likely than not, given what Osisko Development has done around Cariboo, more likely than not, we're going to be including some contribution of Cariboo in our 5-year outlook. And we'll have to see what happens with assets like Spring Valley and others because, obviously, they've got the record of decision, which is a very positive derisking component, but they're still looking to finalize even though the U.S. EXIM Bank has provided term sheets for up to $835 million, they still yet to finalize a complete financing plan. So there's a lot of factors, but I'd say the 2 biggest ones are permitting, the acceptability and social license on site as well as, again, having the financing in place for us to get complete confidence to include it in our 5-year outlook.

Great. And maybe switching gears a little bit and following up on Fahad's question here in terms of royalty acquisitions. As we've seen, as you mentioned as well, the activity has picked up and the size of these transactions have certainly picked up as well. We've seen a number of transactions hitting the $1 billion mark. How do you see OR Royalties positioned for some of these bigger deals? It's $1 billion deals. Would that still be within your snack bracket? And along the same topic, did that kind of factor into a decision to increase your line of credit from 500 -- I believe, CAD 550 million to USD 650 million.

Yes, it's a really good question. So the way I'd answer that, Cosmos, is we certainly need to pick our spots. Again, given where the commodity complex has gone, and you've obviously seen [ a remark ] in some of the deals out there, we have to be true to the economic returns that we're providing to our shareholders. That doesn't mean we've got $900 million of available liquidity to act on accretive transactions for ourselves. So let's just say the $1 billion type transaction in the right circumstance and the right return is not off the table for OR Royalties. We are working on a number of transactions that are significantly less than that, but we also are in the flow with transactions that, again, to meet the precedents that we've seen over the last couple of quarters. It really just comes down to returns. It comes down to the security of the instrument. And what we think is to essentially complement what we believe we have the best portfolio, both growth and quality-wise in the sector to complement that.

Great. And maybe one last question going to Osisko Development, and it's great to see that they've announced a financing package. I guess there's 2 benefits. Number one, now it is "fully financed." And number two, it helps in terms of diluting your ownership in the company, as you mentioned, Jason, to about 14.3%. I guess my question is, is that -- are you happy with that 14.3%? Or would you want that to go even lower? And maybe if you can kind of touch on the longer-term plans in terms of your holdings and the shares of ODV.

Yes. Look, it's a great question, Cosmos. Firstly, we'd like to acknowledge and congratulate the Osisko Development team because, obviously, they've derisked the Cariboo project significantly over the course of the last year, getting their permits, having an optimized feasibility study and finally getting the financing in place. I think we were very clear, especially when I came on, that we were no longer going to be funding the Osisko Development, Cariboo through equity placements or through any other type of financial arrangements, given at that time, we own close to 50% of the equity in the company. Through the course of a series of equity dilution or equity offerings, we are now down and will be down when they close these financings to 14%. We are quite happy with our position at 14%. We are quite optimistic. And as I said, do believe that the Cariboo asset is a top quality Canadian producing development opportunity. And again, the big value for us, though, obviously comes from the big chunky 5% NSR we have. So to answer your question, we are currently very pleased with the 14.3% position that we'll have. We continue to have conversations with the Osisko Development management team. And so we're a very -- right now, we're a pleased shareholder. And so that's where I'd like to end that. So we're not looking in any fashion, so I'm very, very clear. We're not looking in any fashion to divest or sell that block in the near term.

[Operator Instructions] your next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek with Scotiabank.

Two questions. The first one just follows up on the landscape for potential transactions. So if we eliminate the $1 billion range, what would you say most of your transaction range size-wise would be?

That's a great question, Tanya. Look, what I will tell you is it ranges anything from, again, somewhere around USD 35 million all the way up to close to the USD $1 billion. Again, we're working on multiple transaction opportunities, and so I can't give you any more specificity than that.

Okay. And would that also involve, Jason, the total size, including debt positions or equity positions included in these types of transactions as well as just normal streams and other?

Yes, you can assume that, Tanya, that whatever we provide in terms of financial instruments, the targets are the transaction size, you can assume is all instruments, yes.

And could I also assume that, that could include corporate transactions in that $1 billion range?

Well, again, the market has actually done a remarkable thing for all the royalty and streaming companies have all appreciated significantly. But I've always been very, very deliberate and open with yourself and others. Firstly, we're open for business. Secondly, there has been obviously an uptick if you think of the [ Royal Gold, ] Sandstorm transaction on just the interest and, let's say, chatter out there in the marketplace around corporate transactions. We continue to look at opportunities, both corporately and through royalty and streaming transactions that would be accretive to our shareholders. So to answer your question, yes, that would -- corporate transactions are included in, again, the range of dollars that we hope to deploy over the course of the next 6 to 12 months.

Okay. That's helpful. And then my second question is I haven't seen any additional filings from Elliott. Has there been any update to what was then announced in April? I just haven't seen any further updates. I'm just wondering if you have as well.

It's a good question. So the last public disclosure that we see is Elliott owns 2.2 million OR Royalties shares. And so I don't think until they actually publish something further, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate beyond that.

No, I didn't want you to speculate. I just wanted to make sure that that's all that's out there. I haven't seen anything else that I've missed.

That's what we see as the last public disclosure, the 2.2 million shares.

There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call over to Jason for closing remarks.

Thank you, Joelle. As always, if anyone on the call or listening to the replay has any additional questions, insights, observations on our business and our business strategy, please do reach out to Grant, Heather and myself, and we'll be more than pleased to provide more information about the bright future for our company and its shareholders. With that, we don't want to delay you any further, knowing that we are one of the last companies to report, and so you can enjoy the remainder of the summer. Thank you very much.

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