Good morning and welcome to Franco-Nevada Corporation's 2024 Year End Results Conference Call and Webcast. This call is being recorded on March 10, 2025. At this time, all lines are in a listen-only mode. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Candida Hayden, Senior Analyst, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Joanna. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today to discuss Franco-Nevada's year-end 2024 results. Accompanying this call is a presentation which is available on our website at franco-nevada.com, where you will also find our full financial results. The presentation is also available to view on the webcast. During our call this morning, Paul Brink, President and CEO of Franco-Nevada, will provide introductory remarks, followed by Sandip Rana, Chief Financial Officer, who will provide a brief review of our results. This will be followed by a Q&A period. Our full executive team is available to answer any questions. Participants may submit questions by telephone or via the webcast. We would like to remind participants that some of today's commentary may contain forward-looking information, and we refer you to our detailed cautionary note on Slide 2 of this presentation. I will now turn over the call to Paul Brink, President and CEO of Franco-Nevada.

Thanks, Candida. Good morning. First of all, welcome to Daniel Malchuk, who joined our board in January. Daniel is an experienced Director and spent much of his executive career at BHP, including roles heading operations in the markets, running the copper, aluminium, nickel, and manganese businesses, and heading the exploration division. Daniel's base is out of Santiago and I'm sure will have valuable perspectives on many of the assets and countries in which we invest. We ended the year well with a strong fourth quarter. GEO sales for the year were near the top end of our revised GEO guidance range. The tailwind from rising gold prices led to higher quarterly revenue, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted net income compared to Q4 2023, even without a contribution from Cobre Panama. 2024 was the most active year in our history for business development. Eaun and the team entered into more than $1.3 billion in acquisitions and commitments during the year. Transactions included a gold stream investment in Cascabel in Ecuador, a royalty on the Yanacocha gold mine in Peru, and a principally gold stream on Sibanye’s western limb PGM operations in South Africa. All of them are high-quality ore bodies with potential to be very long-life mines. One of our largest portfolio successes in 2024 was the completion of construction and commercial operation of Tocantinzinho in Brazil, where we have a 12.5% gold stream. No surprise that the mine built by the GEO mining team was on time and on budget. Rather than just providing stream financing, Franco-Nevada is the financial banker of G Mining Ventures, having provided stream debt and equity components. These add to only the first many mines G Mining will build and Franco provides strong financial backing. In January, we announced a second partnership based on the same principles: a financing package to support Discovery Silver's acquisition of Newmont's Porcupine Complex in Timmins, including a royalty credit facility and backing for their equity raise. This team are absolutely the right group to revitalize the assets and realize the tremendous potential that still remains in the camp. This is possibly only the first move to consolidate operations in the camp. And with financial backing from Franco, Discovery is well positioned for those next steps. The acquisitions of the last 12 months have the potential to add 85,000 to 95,000 GEOs per annum to our medium-term production profile, almost all gold ounces. With these new additions, along with organic growth from our existing portfolio, these drive the growth outlined in our 2025 guidance and outlook for the next five years. For 2025, the new contributions from Sibanye's Western Limb operations and Porcupine and full-year contributions from Yanacocha, Greenstone, and Salares Norte will have a substantial impact. Some of the highlights for the longer-term outlook are higher silver contributions from Antamina and new gold ounces from the startup of Valentine Gold, Eskay Creek, and Stibnite Gold. With Sandip's management of our balance sheet, all the acquisitions were or will be when the discovery deal closes funded from our cash balances, and we'll still have no debt and a substantial cash balance. Our growing operating cash flows will also allow us to increase dividends for the 18th consecutive time in January this year. Cumulative dividends since IPO are now greater than $2.5 billion. Our business development team could use a break after all the activity in the last 12 months, but I don't think that's going to happen. We have actual opportunities that could add more attractive assets this year. Finally, I'm very encouraged by the developments in Panama. President Mulino has indicated a willingness to discuss Cobre Panama this year, and sentiment in Panama now appears more supportive of restarting the line. I think there are good odds we'll see positive progress this year. With that, I'll hand the call over to Sandip.

Thank you, Paul. Good morning, everyone. As Paul mentioned, Franco-Nevada ended the year with a strong fourth quarter, which was the result of both strong production from our asset base and higher precious metal prices. Precious metal prices, with gold in particular, reached record highs in 2024. On Slide 4, you will see the comparison of commodity prices for both the fourth quarter and full year 2024. Gold and silver prices increased significantly for both periods, with gold higher by 34.7% in the quarter and 22.9% for the year. Prices for palladium, iron ore, and oil continue to be volatile and were lower year-over-year. Slide 5 provides a recap of the company's performance against the revised guidance provided for last year. The updated guidance for 2024 provided for a range of 445,000 to 465,000 total GEO sold. Of this total, the company guided 340,000 to 360,000 precious metal GEOs, with the balance being from diversified assets. With the strong finish at the end of the year, the company ended the year with 463,334 GEO sold, which was near the top end of the guidance range. We were also at the top end of the guidance range for precious metals with 355,000 sold. The diversified assets, which include our non-precious metal mining assets and energy assets, resulted in just over 108,000 GEOs sold for the year. I'd like to point out that the revenue generated from our diverse site assets was actually in line with our expectations for the year. However, with a 37% higher average gold price in 2024 than our budgeted gold price, when converting to GEO sold, it actually resulted in the loss of 21,000 GEOs than if the gold price had remained at our budget prices. Turning to slide 6, you'll see the 2023 and 2024 fourth quarter comparisons for GEO sold, revenue, and adjusted EBITDA. Total GEO sold were 120,063 in the fourth quarter compared to 152,351 in the fourth quarter of 2023. Precious metal GEO sold in the fourth quarter of 2024 were 95,565, higher by 5% compared to the prior year when excluding Cobre Panama. In the fourth quarter, we received strong contributions from Candelaria and benefited from the continued ramp-up of new mines, Tocantinzinho and Greenstone. Candelaria delivered 26,891 GEOs for the quarter, which was almost 70% higher than the prior year and twice as many GEOs as Q3 2024. The diversified GEOs sold were 24,298 for the quarter, compared to 32,770 for the prior year despite diversified revenue being flat year-over-year. The approximate 8,000 GEO sold difference is due to the impact of GEO conversion using higher prices. Total revenue for the quarter was $321 million compared to $303.3 million last year, a 5.8% increase. Precious metals accounted for 79% of revenue. Adjusted EBITDA was 9% higher for the quarter at $277.4 million compared to $254.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. As you turn to slide 7, you'll see a new measure that we have presented in our year-end financial results. It is called net GEOs. As we look at our royalty and streaming business, we think it's important to evaluate contributions from assets based on margin contribution and not necessarily top-line measures. Royalty GEOs are higher margin GEOs as there's minimal cost associated with each GEO sold versus a stream where ongoing fixed payment is required. The measure net GEOs removes the cost of sales component for all GEOs so that all GEOs sold are represented after cost. For Q4, 2024, net GEOs were 107,140 for Franco-Nevada compared to 129,527 in Q4, 2023. Slide 8 highlights the key financial metrics used by the company. As mentioned, total GEOs sold were 120,063, generating $321 million in revenue in the fourth quarter. With respect to costs, we did have a decrease in the cost of sales compared to Q4 2023, due to less stream ounces sold, which is predominantly related to the absence of Cobre Panama. Depletion decreased to $60 million versus $68.9 million a year ago. Depletion is based on actual mining GEO sold and barrels of oil equivalent received on the energy side of the business. As we receive less GEOs from Cobre Panama and Antapaccay, this impacts the depletion of those assets, higher per ounce depletion assets. Adjusted net income was $183.3 million, or $0.95 per share for the quarter, up 6% and 5% respectively versus prior year. Slide 9 highlights the continued diversification of the portfolio. 76.5% of our full-year 2024 revenue was generated by precious metals, with revenue being sourced 83.9% from the Americas. Our largest contributor to revenue was Candelaria at 14.6% for the full year. Slide 10 illustrates the strength of our business model to generate high margins. For the full year 2024, the cash cost per GEO, which is essentially cost of sales divided by gold equivalent ounces sold, is $278 per GEO. This compares to $286 per GEO in 2023. For the quarter, the cash cost per ounce was $287 compared to $296 in the fourth quarter of 2023. As the gold price has risen, Franco-Nevada has seen a significant increase in our margin per GEO. Margin was $2,375 per GEO in Q4 2024. We've always stated that in a rising commodity price environment, we expect to benefit fully as the cost per GEO sold should not increase significantly. With respect to the company's GEO sold guidance for 2025, please refer to slide 11. For 2025, we're guiding total GEOs sold of between 465,000 to 525,000, which is a 7% increase over 2024. If you use constant pricing between 2025 and 2024, the increase would be 13% year-over-year. On this range, we are guiding 385,000 to 425,000 precious metal GEOs for the year. This is a 14% increase in precious metal GEOs over 2024. The overall main drivers for GEOs year-over-year for precious metals will benefit from contributions from recent acquisitions, Sibanye Western Limb mining operations stream, Porcupine Complex royalty, and Yanacocha royalty. We will continue to benefit from the ramp-up of new mines that began production in 2024. Tocantinzinho, Greenstone, and Salares Norte. We will begin to receive initial ounces from the currently under construction Valentine Gold Mine in the second half of 2025. Please note we will no longer be receiving gold ounces from Mine Waste Solutions, as the cap was reached in October 2024. Our guidance has been calculated using $2,800 per ounce for gold, $31 for silver, $950 for platinum, and $950 for palladium, and $100 for iron ore. Obviously, prices are volatile, and as they change, it will impact the conversion of non-gold commodities to GEOs. On the energy side, we're using a price of $70 per barrel WTI and $3 MCF natural gas. Using our budgeted goal price of $2,800 per ounce and the midpoint of our total GEOs guidance range, we expect a 25% increase in 2025 revenue over 2024. Also, with respect to timing, we do expect to see better performance as the year progresses, so a stronger second half is expected. As you look forward over the next few years, we do forecast 2028 as the current high for GEOs sold based upon the information we have to date. For 2029, our outlook is 490,000 to 550,000 GEOs sold. Of this range, precious metals would be 375,000 to 415,000 GEOs. Main contributors would be higher production from Antamina due to access to higher-grade ore based on the latest mine plan. Full-year contributions from Valentine Gold. And new mine starts from Stibnite Gold, Eskay Creek, Castle Mountain, and Copper World. We've also assumed the startup of Taca Taca, with a partial year contribution. We assume mine expansions for Candelaria, Coroccohuayco and Antapaccay, and Magino. For the energy assets, we do assume an increase in production over the next five years, resulting in an increase in GEOs. Also, we've held energy prices flat at $70 a barrel WTI and $3 in MCF natural gas. Overall, when you look at the outlook for GEO sold, the company has approximately 12% built-in organic growth from 2024 to 2029 at budgeted commodity prices, excluding Cobre Panama. This also assumes that no additional assets are added to the portfolio. Please note that for all outlook ranges, we have excluded Cobre Panama in our GEO sold numbers. If Cobre Panama remained in production, we would have expected deliveries and sales of between 130,000 and 150,000 GEOs annually. One additional item to note with the legal proceedings that will move forward related to Cobre Panama, we're expecting to incur annual costs of approximately $10 million per year. These costs will continue to be disclosed separately in our financials. Slide 13 summarizes the financial resources available to the company. When including our credit facility of $1 billion, total available capital at December 31 was $2.4 billion. After year-end, we have funded the $500 million Sibanye Western Limb Complex acquisition and expect to fund the Royalty acquisition during the second quarter. The company remains well capitalized to continue to add long-life high-quality assets to the portfolio. And now I'll pass it over to Jonah and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. The first question comes from Lawson Winder at Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you very much, operator. And good morning, Paul and Sandip. I wanted to start off with a couple of questions on Cobre Panama, if I might. So one would be just related to President Mulino and some comments that he's made publicly. President Mulino of Panama indicated that he would require all arbitrations to be halted prior to entering into discussions with First Quantum. I just want to confirm that that also included the Franco arbitration. And does Franco have the ability to put its arbitration on hold or temporarily put it aside in order to facilitate those negotiations if needed.

Thank you, Lawson. It’s Paul. A couple of things there. Yes, separate arbitration processes and separate regimes. There is the ability under each of those processes that you can put the arbitration on hold for a fixed timeframe. So that is a possibility, although we haven't had any asks from any of the parties to put asks on hold yet.

Okay, perfect. And then thanks for that, Paul. Then another comment that President Mulino had made was just speaking about the economics of the prior deal negotiated under the Cortizo government relating to Cobre Panama, noting that it was unfavorable for Panama. Has Franco-Nevada had any messages delivered or does it have any understanding of what that could potentially mean for the Franco Stream or whether it means anything at all? For example, there's been some discussion of a potential change in the ownership position going to the country of Panama. I mean, can you comment on any potential implications for Franco there? I know it's highly speculative, but it has been mentioned many times in the Panamanian press and we'd just like to get your views.

Yeah, so first off in terms of economics, I think that the deal that was negotiated a couple of years back was positive, was a good deal for Panama. You'll recall in particular it had the provisions that provided minimum payments in the order of $375 million a year, which I think for any country is a particularly strong provision. So, you know, I think there were good economics for Panama in that deal. I know there has been discussion of the country essentially wanting to get a better deal. Not surprised by that. In terms of the way that may go for Franco, we're financiers here, not owners. So on the legalities of it, any change in ownership doesn't change the way that our stream is calculated. Any increase in taxes in the country or in royalties, none of that changes the way that our royalty is written.

Yeah, okay. Thank you very much for those comments. It's very helpful. And then just two of the other streams that I'd like to ask about, it would be just helpful to get a little bit of color on specifics. So, with the SSW or the Sibanye-Stillwater South African PGM Stream, it's closed, congratulations. And then just for Q1, when we think about the 7,000 GEOs from 2024 and the 45-day delay before any GEOs are actually delivered to Franco. How should we think about when the first delivery might occur, whether it be Q1 or Q2? Or what would you recommend we model regarding that particular stream?

Lawson, it's Sandip. It has closed, and that happened a couple of weeks ago. The delivery from September to December for 2024 will be received in Q1. You are correct that the next delivery related to the 2025 production has a 45-day delay, so that will arrive in Q2. For Q1, you should only budget or estimate the delivery related to 2024.

Thank you for that, Sandip. Looking at the long-term guidance for 2028 and 2029, Magino and Island are progressing towards operating as a single unit. With Magino, there's a 3% royalty, and for Island, it's at 0.62%. How are these royalties defined? Is there a possibility of them being combined, or will it depend on the ore source? The plan is to eventually close the Island mill and process Island ore at Magino; is there an additional benefit in this strategy, or will we need to determine how to mix the two ore sources to reach the appropriate royalty level?

Currently, at Island, we only cover part of the deposit, whereas at Magino, we cover the entire land package. You are correct that there are discussions about shutting down the Island gold mill and expanding the Magino mill to 15,000 tonnes per day. Alamos is currently evaluating this situation. Once that expansion occurs, the key issue will be determining the source of the ore. When we made our agreement, we planned for 11,500 tonnes per day to come from Magino, so I believe that's the minimum amount we should expect to receive in future production after the mill expansion.

And then in your current 2028 '29 guidance, that's the 11,500 tonnes per day, is that correct?

Correct. Correct.

Thank you very much, guys. Appreciate it.

Thank you. The next question comes from Cosmos Chiu at CIBC. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Paul and Sandip, maybe my first question is on GEOs and how you calculate it. Could you remind us each and every quarter how you calculate GEOs, how you convert commodities, not gold into gold equivalent ounces? Is that based on the spot prices during that quarter? Or is it based on your assumption that you've put out at the beginning of the year, like today, $2,800 and $31 an ounce?

Hi, Cosmos, yes, we will adjust at each quarter. So essentially, at a high level, we'll take our non-gold revenue and we will divide by the average gold price for the quarter. So obviously, you saw last year gold prices increased, and it impacted the number of GEOs or diversified assets generated, even though the revenue was the same as what we had expected for the year.

Yes. And Sandip, as you mentioned last year, you had to change it because gold prices clearly fluctuated quite a bit beyond what you had expected beginning of 2024. But for 2025 guidance, I guess my question is, could you share with us how much buffer you've put into that guidance? And I guess my question is, how much can it withstand in terms of volatility in commodity prices? Just given that last year when you had to change your guidance in 2024, it was not exactly well received. I'm just trying to see if that could happen again in 2025.

If it does happen, it's actually a great thing because the gold price has gone up significantly. But our guidance range is a 60,000 ounce range. You take the midpoint, so we've got 30,000 GEOs to the downside. If the gold price went up around 20%, I think we'd still be okay. But obviously, it's a risk that's part of the way we calculate guidance. Certain years, you benefit when other commodities outperform gold prices. But obviously, gold outperforming now, it is impacting the conversion, but we did run a number of sensitivities. At this stage, we're comfortable with the range.

I agree. Higher gold prices are always better. Ultimately, what matters is revenue and cash flow. So I think you're correct, Sandip. Moving on to Cobre Panama, Paul, as you mentioned, the international arbitration appears to operate under different regimes. I noticed your meeting is scheduled for October 2026, while First Quantum mentioned theirs would be in February 2026. Is there any significance that we should be aware of regarding the different timing and the various regimes under which the arbitration is taking place? Or is it essentially the same?

I don't think there's anything to read into the timing there, Cosmos. First Quantum has the option of going either under the ICC, which they're going under. They could also go under the Canada Panama free trade agreement, which is what we are going under. It's MPSC that's pursuing it under the ICC. We don't have that option. So our only option is under the Canada to Panama. The different tribunals have different time frames that they work under. The difference in timing is just versus the different processes.

Okay. But as you said, Paul, this is really Plan B. I think your preferred alternative is for the operator and the government to work out something on their own, right?

Absolutely. That's always the best outcome.

Of course. One last question, Porcupine. Could you maybe talk about how that deal came about? Clearly, this is the only royalty streaming involvement in the Newmont divestitures. And so how did the parties come together? What's the evolution of that deal? My other part of the question is that I see that you are providing a credit facility, Paul, as you mentioned, and an equity investment as well. More sort of full-service financing. Is that the type of deal we could expect on a go-forward basis?

Hi, Cosmos, it's Eaun here. Hope you're having a good day. Happy to answer that question. I guess, first off, in terms of how it came together. Tony Makuch, we know well. A number of people in Franco-Nevada have a strong relationship with Tony. And when those assets came for sale, the obvious strategy was to work with the ideal person to revitalize them. And so we quickly spoke with Tony and formed a strategy together as to how we would back him in doing that, and the rest is history. We did provide multiple tranches. And I think that's what you will see going forward. When we can do that, we find a suitable human asset, we will provide flexibility because capital markets aren't always the most efficient around these kinds of things. And when we see the ability to get a good return for our shareholders, we'll utilize other elements of the capital structure. So it's not going to be all of what we do, but it certainly, we hope it's a component going forward, and we're very pleased with the results of that transaction.

Great. Those are all the questions I have. Thanks once again, Paul, Sandip, and Eaun.

Thank you. The next question comes from Josh Wolfson of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. First question on the five-year guidance. I noticed the inclusion of the underground production expansion at Candelaria and then also Taca Taca. We don't have a lot of insights as to what the production contribution could be from those opportunities. Is the company able to provide a bit more disclosure there and maybe what the volume contribution would be?

Candelaria's underground expansion is expected to increase production from 14,000 tons per day to 22,000 tons per day, with a decision anticipated later this year. We have assumed they will proceed with the expansion, but confirmation is needed. Regarding Taca Taca, we have assessed First Quantum's position, and given the current situation in Argentina, this project is likely to be their next focus. We plan for a partial ramp-up in 2029, estimating about 4,000 GEOs in total for Franco, which is relatively modest.

Got it. Thank you very much. And then just a couple of sort of small details. So for Palmarejo, the disclosures talk about production declining in 2029. Should we assume the production stays steady through 2028 versus some of the very high levels this year?

That's correct. From 2025 to 2028, it is pretty consistent, and then it's about a 50% drop in 2029.

And Josh, those operations have had a great history of being able to replace ounces. So that's what's in the mine plan today. We hope that in the interim, there will be the ability to extend that mine plan.

Got it. Thank you. And one last small housekeeping question. For Bald Mountain, and I know it's not a huge asset in terms of overall production. But just because the royalty has come up pretty strongly in recent years and the royalty can vary quite a bit depending on what land is being mined. For these new Redbird pits, any sort of idea what the royalty rate would be?

Off the top of my head, Josh, I can't recall; I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Okay, thanks very much.

The next question comes from Heiko Ihle at H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead.

Hi, there. Paul, Sandip, and team, thanks for taking my questions. Recent market volatility has been quite rocky. I mean, today is another fun day in the markets. I guess a bit of an open-ended question, but I mean do you already see some impact of what's going on just in pretty much every stock in these out there flowing into your M&A discussions? Or is this essentially offset because gold is still sitting at $2,900?

Heiko, everyone feels the effects of market volatility in some way. However, I must say that the gold mining industry is quite fortunate because, in most locations, you can easily transport gold and sell it wherever you choose. Therefore, I would argue that among various industries, it is likely the least affected.

Okay. And it doesn't come up in conversation where people are like, 'I want to get out now or soon?'

No, no. Certainly, we haven't had any conversations like that.

Building on what you almost just answered a little bit, have there been rumblings of countries trying to, your words, put stuff on planes and get it out of there and make that a little bit tougher given what's going on geopolitically right now?

Not in a sense of operations cycle, although I'm sure you're familiar that there's been a huge movement in stocks, particularly gold stocks out of London and into the U.S. And I believe there's some of that happening in terms of copper stocks as well. But other than that, I haven't heard of any that in other jurisdictions.

Fair enough. That's reassuring. I'll get back in queue.

Thank you. The next question comes from Daniel Major at UBS. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Great. Thanks. Just the first question, I think, have partially answered already, but can you just run us through the delta, the key driver for the moderation in the guidance 2029 versus 2028?

Sure. Daniel, it's Sandip here. The main adjustment is at Guadalupe, Palmarejo, based on our current mine plan. As Paul mentioned, the mine continues to be extended over time, and we are optimistic that the mine life will keep being extended. You will see a 50% drop in GEO, which reflects the decrease expected in 2029.

That's clear. And then the second question, just thinking slightly bigger picture about the Sibanye deal and the profile that you've provided. I mean when we look at this kind of asset towards the upper end of the cost curve, obviously, a large reserve life. But in the context of a commodity with potentially challenging longer-term fundamentals. I don't know has the plans to bring on the Platreef towards the end of the decade. I mean, how concerned are you about the longevity of production based on the kind of cost position of the asset and the fundamental outlook for the market?

Hi. Dan, it's Eaun Gray again. In terms of the assets, I actually think that when you look at the cost curve, you'll see they're more towards the middle, especially when you account for byproducts. Relative to the Platreef, you have very significant non-PGM byproducts coming out of the UG2, which Sibanye is focused on. So things like iridium, ruthenium have catalytic uses. So that stands to benefit these operations relatively compared to some of the others. The infrastructure, this is a market that, as you're sure well aware, offtake of concentrate is very limited as to where it could go. Sibanye is fully integrated. A lot of these other operations is unclear whether they have all of the offtake or other key elements for production that are necessary, whereas these are very much a fully integrated operation. I take a lot of comfort that, long term, there'll be strong producers from that basket and fully integrated nature of the operations.

Thanks for that. Finally, in the last couple of calls, you've answered questions about fertilizers and potash. You acquired a small option from Brazil Potash Corp. Can you provide any insight into how advanced you are in this market segment with other potential deals and how they compare to other opportunities available?

Thank you. Regarding our overall strategy, our goal is to focus primarily on gold stocks and precious metals. However, I've mentioned before that we also look for good opportunities in other commodities when they arise. This is why we have maintained a diversified approach over time. The opportunity with Brazil potash is particularly compelling due to its low entry point. We secured an option to receive a royalty if and when this significant project moves forward, which I believe is quite likely. The deposit is very appealing and is located near a major agricultural region in Brazil, offering substantial logistical cost advantages. I'm optimistic that we will be able to exercise that option in due time. In terms of our pipeline, as always, we are looking at a mix of precious metals and diversified opportunities, but the majority will definitely be in precious metals. I believe this is what you can expect from us in the coming months.

Great. Thanks so much. I'll get back in the queue.

Thank you. The next question comes from Brian MacArthur at Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning and thank you for taking my questions. Most of them were answered. Can I go back to the delta between '28 and '29? I get that Guadalupe comes down, and I guess you're saying it's the full 25,000 ounces. But can I confirm then on the Antapaccay, you talked about it cutting back in 2028. Is that at the beginning of the year? Or is that partially through the year? I'm still trying to make up the difference between '28 and '29.

Yes. Brian, you're looking at a partial year in '28, which means you'll experience a full year's decrease in '29. If there's a reduction in ounces from Antapaccay in 2029, along with the decrease from Guadalupe, you will see some loss in total ounces. However, on the other hand, Copper World and Taca Taca are expected to help offset some of this reduction.

Great. And just on Candelaria while I'm at it, the step down from 68 to 40. Again, is that partially through the year in your assumptions in 2027 or at the beginning of the year?

Partial year.

Great. Thanks very much.

Thank you. The next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek at Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you very much for taking my three questions. I just wanted to follow again on this guidance and a lot of it has been answered. Maybe what I just would like to clarify with you is that the Palmarejo last year it’s Mine Waste Solution is gone. Is there anything else that is sort of in the time frame not contributing or is dying out over the time frame that we should be aware of?

From a materiality standpoint, Tanya, those are the 2 largest.

Okay. Perfect. I wanted to understand your assumption for Stillwater because we expect a significant decline in 2025. Please go ahead.

Sorry. So Stillwater, as the operator has guided, it's 265,000 PGM ounces for 2025. We've assumed that for three years, and then it ramps back up subsequent to that.

And back to that 500,000 or 600,000 GEO range?

500,000.

And then just continuing on the guidance. You mentioned the energy division is increasing over this time frame. You used to provide guidance on what the energy contribution. So if I think of your 2029 or 2028 guidance, we were able to see what percentage, 79%, 80% gold or even 76% gold. What would you put the energy as a percentage within your '25, '28, and '29 guidance?

I think for '25, we did disclose what the percentage would be energy. For '29, off the top of my head, I'd say around 16%, 17% of GEOs.

Okay. All right. That's helpful. Thank you. And then just a final one on guidance. You mentioned that, Sandip, that it's going to be stronger second half. And so we understand about the Sibanye deal. Obviously, there's some mine ramp-up occurring. How should I be thinking first half, second half? Is it a very big difference? Is it a 45-55? And again, this assumes your price forecast and assuming them to be flat without movement in commodities. But if I think of it that way, is it a 45-55?

Just numbers I've looked at and our budgeted assumptions, I'd say it's 47-53.

Okay. And is it quarter-over-quarter improvement, should I be thinking of it that way as well?

Second quarter will be better than Q1 just because of the timing of the Sibanye, but I look to Q3 and Q4, not too far off from each other.

Okay. All right. So those are my guidance questions. My second one has to do with Cobre Panama. I just wanted to confirm again, is there any further discussions on the concentrate on-site and whether that may be dealt with ahead of these decisions and/or other in 2026? Maybe, Paul, is there anything on the concentrate and remind me the size of this concentrate?

Tanya, there are discussions that the company has been keen to be able to move initially what were the remaining explosives off site. Second is to move that concentrate off-site. They do have an agreement. They have been able to move the explosives. So the discussions continue on the concentrate. It is one of the first things I'd like to get moving as the government gets more willing to discuss progress on the mine. In terms of the value of the concentrate, I think the value is in the order of $250 million as the total value to concentrate.

Okay. All right. Well, that would be good if we could at least deal with the concentrate. And then just remind me again on your security on the asset. You have security at the asset level, but you do not have a parent guarantee, right? Just so that I remember this correctly.

So security, MPSC is the operating entity in Panama. So we are secured on the shares of MPSA that operating entity. As when we look at all these deals as any good bank will tell you where you want to be is as close to the asset as possible. So I'm very happy with the security structure that we have at corporate.

Okay. So security of the asset, but you don't have a corporate guarantee, right?

We have undertakings up the change at the various entities that would ensure that the undertakings of MPSA are fulfilled, which is above the usual sort of provisions that you would get from a corporate.

And maybe one thing to add, Tanya. In order to have the arbitration directly with Panama, it's very important that you're linked directly to the asset. So in a lot of cases, if you were just a corporate obligation, you wouldn't be able to avail yourself of that type of protection. Just one of the benefits of that structure.

As I mentioned, I hope we don't reach that point. I hope everything gets resolved, which would be beneficial for everyone involved. So for my last question, I'll continue discussing M&A and transactions. We have completed several deals in the gold sector, including a smaller one in potash. Where do we currently stand regarding the commodity mix of the deals we are considering in the market? Can we review the size—are we still looking at deals in the $300 million to $500 million range? Is that the target deal size? Are we now placing more emphasis on precious metals, or have we done sufficient deals in that area? What is our current position on that mix?

Tanya, it's Eaun again. So in terms of metals, I think Paul alluded earlier to the fact that we're still very much focused on precious metals. The vast majority of what we're looking at right now is precious metals. It doesn't mean that there aren't good opportunities outside of that. But in terms of just the deal flow, that's primarily what we're seeing at the moment. I think it's a good time. And in terms of the complexion of the deals, what I would really say is what you saw last year is a good reflection of kind of what we're seeing now. Last year, obviously, it was also unprecedented in terms of total dollars that we deployed, very happy about just how active we work and the investments that we made. But in terms of what they look like, very similar in terms of whether it is size or reason for doing the deal.

Okay. Is it still the case that financing options for smaller companies are available for the development of assets?

Absolutely. I think the core pillar of our business development efforts is project finance. I think we've got a strong team to do that, and we're well placed with our balance sheet. So we continue to focus very much on trying to do significant project financing deals.

Okay. And then I wanted to ask on the non-gold side. You said there could be opportunities come up. Are there opportunities in the non-gold side of your business? And if so, what sort of size of those potential transactions?

Certainly, there are opportunities that span a range in terms of size, but probably similar to what we've been looking at on the precious metals side, Tanya. Some are smaller, some are medium-sized.

About $300 million to $500 million. Will you continue to focus on the non-gold commodities you have looked at historically? Or has energy returned to your strategy? Would you consider energy as part of the non-gold component? I know you had paused that for some time.

So Tanya, our diversified strategy focuses on being opportunistic rather than starting with a specific commodity. Energy is one of the areas we would consider if the right opportunity arises. Currently, we have more flexibility, but there are no active opportunities at the moment.

Okay, thank you so much for taking my questions. I’ll let someone else, I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from Martin Pradier at Veritas. Please go ahead.

Can you give us some precision on what you expect from Tocantinzinho and Valentine Gold for 2025?

Sure. So for 2025, Valentine will be ramping up in the second half of the year. So it's minimal. It's 1,500 to 2,000 GEOs. Tocantinzinho, fully ramped up by just over 20,000 GEOs.

Thank you. I've noticed ongoing concerns regarding the CRA. Do you anticipate a decision on this matter in the upcoming year?

Obviously, we are a large cap taxpayer in the view of CRA. So we are constantly audited, no different than other large-cap taxpayers. Obviously, we had three audit issues outstanding. Two got resolved where they dropped the reassessments. We've got the transfer pricing dispute that's ongoing. We continue to work with CRA. Would I like to resolve it this year? Absolutely. But with CRA, it's just a question of timing and what their views are. So we continue to move forward, but no resolution at this time.

Okay, but isn't that part supposed to reach a decision this year?

Yes. They reassessed us, we appealed, and now we are progressing through the process towards a potential court date. We have completed Discovery. The next step is whether we can come to a resolution on our own, or if we will need to go to court. There is no decision at this moment.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next question comes from John Tumazos at John Tumazos Very Independent Research. Please go ahead.

Congratulations on putting $1 billion to work and for the $55 million in Discovery stock to basically double in a month, well done. If you wanted to go to the beach or fish or play golf for the rest of the year, you've done a good job for the shareholders. You earned it. In all seriousness, could you tell us your criteria in terms of minimum rate of return, gold price or other? So in evaluating future deals to not reduce the average quality of the portfolio given some of the great deals you have in hand. And are your criteria primarily numerical, quantitative or is qualitative geologic inference more important to you than an NPV?

I believe you've addressed the question. Ultimately, it’s crucial to invest in high-quality ore bodies, which is our main goal. Any addition to our portfolio should consist of strong ore bodies. Whenever we assess a deal, our Board consistently reminds us that projections are not definitive. Ore bodies will evolve, and commodity prices fluctuate. Therefore, our priority is on the quality of the ore bodies we choose for our portfolio. We're willing to accept a lower rate of return based on current conditions for those ore bodies, but if we select ones that are likely to grow over time, that's where we achieve our returns. We want to focus on ore bodies with favorable economics where we can confidently expect to recover our investments. Additionally, we consider the potential upside and the multiple of our investment that could be realized should our expectations for growth in ore bodies materialize.

Thank you. In terms of the new Discovery silver investment, is it limited to exactly the landholdings bought from Newmont at closing and the existing mill? And for example, if Tony were to buy back his old company Lake Shore Gold from Pan-Am, should we assume that's excluded from your royalty?

Thank you for the kind words, John. Regarding the Discovery deal, our primary focus is on building relationships, and we are committed to supporting Tony in his initiatives. He has shared his ambitious plans for the area, and we aim to assist him in achieving those goals. We've included certain partnership clauses in the agreement to secure specific rights under certain conditions, but overall, we see this as more of a commercial relationship. We believe it is vital to help them consider numerous opportunities in addition to the primary one. We want to aid in maximizing value for Discovery shareholders, of which we are included. This presents an exciting opportunity for us.

Thank you.

We have no further questions on the phone. I will turn the call back over to Candida Hayden.

Thank you. Our first question comes from Bernie Picchi at Palisade Capital Management. Traditionally, Franco-Nevada has avoided investments in certain places, Russia, China, for example. Rule of Law is critical. I was surprised by your investment in Sibanye-Stillwater. Africa has generally not been an area of interest for Franco-Nevada. Can you explain this decision further?

Thanks for the question there. Our objective is to be a low risk weight. Investors can invest in the industry, gold and the benefit of exploration upside. The approach geopolitically is you've got to make sure that most of your assets are in great countries and we're blessed to have so many assets in Canada, U.S., and Australia. There are a lot of other good mining countries in the world, and so we are also exposed in Chile, Peru, and Brazil. We do have assets in West Africa, and we have had assets in South Africa, in particular, for many years. We had interest in mine waste. It wasn't planned this way, but actually, the mine waste deal has ended; it was about 20-plus thousand ounces a year in GEOs and we're able to do the Sibanye deal, similar amount over the long term. So our exposure to South Africa is about the same as it was previously. South Africa is different from much of Africa. It is a very well-developed mining economy. It has a long history. It's got a good labor force, good suppliers, and it does have a good rule or as opposed to other parts of Africa. So in terms of the amount of exposure that we've got, roughly the $500 million, we're comfortable in putting that in South Africa. It does have its risks and its political risks. I actually think it's on the uptick in recent years. You had the change in government. The AMC is still leading it, but for the first time, it's a government of National Unity and I think that's put some checks and balances on the governance and there is a good level of optimism in the country that it has – there is a change in direction in terms of the quality of government management. I think you've seen very practical results in terms of the turnaround in the power situation and also we have good results on the ground in terms of improving the transportation infrastructure. So quite happy with that investment in South Africa. I think it's going to do us well over time.

Our next question is from Bernie Picchi at Palisade Capital Management. Regarding the $250 million of concentrate on-site at Cobre Panama that you and First Quantum would like to move, what portion of that belongs to you compared to First Quantum?

We haven't done the math recently. It depends on what the gold price is at the time, obviously, but that roughly the value there that we are due to receive is $15 million to $20 million.

Thank you, Paul. There are no further questions from the webcast. This concludes our 2024 year-end results conference call and webcast. We will host our Investor Day on Tuesday, March 25, 2025. The in-person presentation will be hosted at the Lumi Experience Center in Toronto at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The presentation will also be available to view virtually. Registration details are available on our website. We expect to release our first-quarter 2025 results after market close on May 8, with the conference call held the following morning. Thank you for your interest in Franco-Nevada. Goodbye.

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