The Company is a corporation organized under the laws of British Columbia, Canada. The Company was formed on February 18, 2002 under the Company Act (British Columbia) pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia approving an amalgamation between Platinum Group Metals Ltd. and New Millennium Metals Corporation. On January 25, 2005 the Company was transitioned under the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) (the “ BCBCA ”).

The Company’s head office is located at Suite 788 – 550 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 2B5 and its telephone number is (604) 899-5450. The Company’s registered office is located at Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Suite 2300 - 550 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 2B5.

47

Information regarding the Company’s organizational structure is provided under Item 4.C. – Organizational Structure.

Since its formation, the Company has been engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of platinum and palladium properties. PTM currently holds interests in platinum properties in the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex in South Africa and in Canada. The Company’s business is currently conducted primarily in South Africa.

At present the Company’s sole material mineral property is the Waterberg Project. A planned DFS is now underway, targeting a large, thick PGM resource with the objective to model a large-scale, fully-mechanized mine. A substantial portion of the Waterberg Project’s prospecting area remains unexplored.

In addition to the information provided below regarding the Company’s principal capital expenditures and divestitures during the last three financial years, see Item 5.B. – Liquidity and Capital Resources – Equity Financings for information on use of proceeds from equity financings.

Recent Developments

The following is a summary of the Company’s noteworthy developments since September 1, 2017:

48

In the event of certain breaches of agreement, insolvency events or events that would entitle a Waterberg JV Co. shareholder to acquire or dispose of any Waterberg JV Co. shares (other than transfers to certain permitted transferees) prior to the DFS Approval, Implats may, by notice to the other Waterberg JV Co. shareholders of such event, cause the Purchase and Development Option to instead become exercisable from the date of such notice. Subject to certain exceptions, the Purchase and Development Option will be exercisable for a period of at least 90 business days from the date of such notice. Upon exercising the Purchase and Development Option, Implats will have the right to appoint the manager of Waterberg JV Co.

The issuance and transfer of Waterberg JV Co. shares to Implats following the exercise of the Purchase and Development Option is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions precedent, including but not limited to: the receipt of required regulatory approvals, including under the South African Competition Act, 89 of 1998, and the MPRDA; and within 180 business days after its exercise of the Purchase and Development Option, Implats confirming the salient terms of a development and mining financing for the Waterberg Project (the “ Development and Mining Financing ”), and providing a signed financing term sheet, subject only to final credit approval and documentation. If Implats exercises the Purchase and Development Option and such transactions are consummated, Implats will have primary control of Waterberg JV Co., including the power to approve matters submitted to the board of directors. Certain matters would continue to require the approval of Waterberg JV Co. shareholders by a 75% vote, including the approval of JOGMEC in certain circumstances.

Should Implats complete the Purchase and Development Option and increase its interest in Waterberg JV Co. to 50.01%, Mnombo’s 26% interest would be maintained by Waterberg JV Co. issuing additional shares to Mnombo at a nominal price, Platinum Group would retain a direct 18.99% interest, and JOGMEC would hold a 5% interest. Platinum Group’s direct and indirect (through its shareholding of Mnombo) interests in Waterberg JV Co. would total 31.96% . Following Implats’ exercise of the Purchase and Development Option and the completion of its earn-in spending, all project partners would be required to participate and fund the development of the Waterberg Project on a pro-rata basis.

The Implats Transaction agreements provide for the transfer of equity and the issuance of additional equity to one or more broad based black empowerment partners, at fair value. If, prior to the consummation of the Purchase and Development Option, a BEE dilution event has occurred (i.e., an event resulting in the issuance of additional equity to a BEE shareholder, thereby reducing the interests of non-BEE shareholders), the amount of equity to be purchased by Implats and the purchase price for such equity upon the exercise of the Purchase and Development Option will be adjusted pursuant to formulas set forth in the Purchase and Development Option.

49

If Implats does not elect to exercise the Purchase and Development Option and arrange the Development and Mining Financing, Implats will retain a 15.0% interest and Platinum Group will retain a 50.02% direct and indirect interest in the Waterberg Project.

Implats has also acquired a right of first refusal to enter into an offtake agreement, on commercial arms-length terms, for the smelting and refining of mineral products from the Waterberg Project. JOGMEC will retain a right to receive platinum, palladium, rhodium, gold, ruthenium, iridium, copper and nickel in refined mineral products at the volume produced from the Waterberg Project.

Implats, JOGMEC, Mnombo and Platinum Group (as operator of the Waterberg Project) have agreed to the detailed scope of work for the DFS. The DFS will investigate two options - a 600,000 tonne per month mine (744,000 ounces PGEs per year) as outlined in the pre-feasibility study completed by the Company in October 2016 (the “ 2016 PFS ”), and a second lower capital option at 250,000 to 350,000 tonnes per month. The selection of the DFS team was also agreed and a tender process managed by a third party specialist for engineering groups has been completed. Following the closing of the Implats Transaction, which occurred on November 6, 2017, DRA Projects SA (Proprietary) Limited (“ DRA ”) was appointed for metallurgy, plant design, infrastructure and cost estimation. Stantec Consulting International LLC (“ Stantec ”) was appointed for underground mining engineering and design and reserve estimation.

The Sprott Lenders and LMM provided their consent to the Implats Transaction, which consents were conditional on the satisfaction of certain conditions by the Company including the provision of a $5 million bridge loan (the “ Bridge Loan ”) by Sprott Lenders to provide working capital to the Company until closing of the Implats Transaction. The Bridge Loan was repaid by the Company on November 17, 2017.

Maseve Sale Transaction

On November 23, 2017, the Company entered into definitive agreements to sell its rights and interests in Maseve to Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited (“ RBPlat ”) in a transaction valued at approximately $74.0 million, payable as $62.0 million in cash and $12.0 million in RBPlat ordinary shares (the “ Maseve Sale Transaction ”).

A deposit in escrow was paid by RBPlat in the amount of Rand 41,367,300 ($3.0 million equivalent) on October 9, 2017.

The Maseve Sale Transaction was completed in April 2018. The Maseve Sale Transaction occurred in two stages:

50

The payment received by Maseve was remitted to the Company’s South African subsidiary, PTM RSA, in partial settlement of loans due to PTM RSA. This first payment due from RBPlat was conditional upon the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions precedent, including but not limited to the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements, the approval, or confirmed obligation, of the holder of the remaining 17.1% equity interest in Maseve, Africa Wide Mineral Prospecting and Exploration Proprietary Limited, the approval of PTM’s secured lenders, the approval of the South African Competition Commission (“ Competition Approval ”), and completion of due diligence which may result in additional conditions.

The RBPlat ordinary shares issued pursuant to the Share Transaction were priced at their 30-day volume weighted average price of the RBPlat ordinary shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange calculated on market close on the day preceding the announcement.

RBPlat was granted a management contract for the Maseve Mine and for carrying out care and maintenance services during the period between the date of grant of the Competition Approval and the date of Ministerial Consent. The Company was responsible for 50% of care and maintenance costs after Competition Approval until the earlier of the date of Ministerial Consent and the date upon which RBPlat utilizes the surface infrastructure of the Maseve Mine for its own purposes.

PTM’s proceeds from the sale of Maseve and the Maseve Mine were repaid to secured lenders who were collectively owed approximately $89 million in principal and accrued interest at August 31, 2017. Sprott and LMM agreed to terms and conditions, upon completion of which, they provided their consent to the Maseve Sale Transaction.

51

52

NYSE American Notice

On April 10, 2018 and May 23, 2018 the Company received letters from the NYSE American stating that it is not in compliance with the continued listing standards as set forth in Sections 1003(a)(i), 1003(a)(ii), 1003(a)(iii) and 1003(f)(v) of the NYSE American Company Guide (the “ Company Guide ”). Upon submission of a plan of compliance by the Company, on June 21, 2018 the NYSE American granted the Company an extension until November 23, 2018 to regain compliance with the requirements of Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide and until October 10, 2019 to regain compliance with Sections 1003(a)(i), 1003(a)(ii) and 1003(a)(iii) of the Company Guide. The Company is not currently in compliance with NYSE American listing standards, but its listing is being continued pursuant to an exception. The Company will be subject to periodic review by Exchange staff during the extension period. If the Company is not in compliance with the Company Guide by the applicable deadlines or if the Company does not make progress consistent with the plan during the plan period, Exchange staff will initiate delisting proceedings as appropriate.

Section 1003(a) of the Company Guide sets forth minimum shareholders’ equity requirements for a company listed on the NYSE American. It also provides that the NYSE American will not normally consider suspending dealings in, or removing from the list, the securities of an issuer if the issuer is in compliance with the following: (A) total value of market capitalization of at least US$50.0 million; or total assets and revenue of US$50.0 million each in its last fiscal year, or in two of its last three fiscal years; and (B) the issuer has at least 1,100,000 shares publicly held, a market value of publicly held shares of at least US$15.0 million and 400 round lot shareholders (collectively, the “Alternative Listing Standards”). In order to satisfy the Alternative Listing Standards, the Company must regain a market capitalization of US$50.0 million or more for a period that the NYSE American considers adequate. These standards in no way limit or restrict the NYSE American’s discretionary authority to suspend dealings in, or remove, a security from listing.

53

On May 15, 2018 the Company further reported amendments to the LMM Facility to comply with the First Required Financing before May 31, 2018 (previously May 15, 2018); and provided that the Company applies the first US$12 million of net proceeds from the First Required Financing to reduce indebtedness under the LMM Facility before May 31, 2018, and is not otherwise in default, the LMM Facility maturity date will be extended to October 31, 2019 (previously June 30, 2018).

US$ 2.26 Million Private Placement and Director’s Appointment

On May 15, 2018 the Company announced the closing of a strategic investment in the Company by HCI on a private placement basis. HCI subscribed, through a subsidiary, for 15,090,999 units (the “ HCI Units ”) at a price of US$0.15 per unit for gross proceeds of US$2,263,649.85 (the “ May 2018 Private Placement ”). Each HCI Unit consists of one common share and one common share purchase warrant (a “Private Placement Warrant”), with each common share purchase warrant allowing HCI to purchase one further common share of the Company at a price of US$0.17 per share for a period of 18 months until November 15, 2019. The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the May 2018 Private Placement: (i) for debt repayment towards a loan facility and production payment termination fees due to LMM; and (ii) for general corporate and working capital purposes.

Pursuant to the subscription agreement, upon completion of the May 2018 Private Placement, HCI became entitled to nominate one person to be appointed to the board of directors of the Company and obtained a right to participate in future equity financings of the Company to maintain its pro-rata interest. Accordingly, Mr. John Anthony Copelyn, Chief Executive Officer of HCI was appointed as a director of the Company.

US$ 17.62 Million Public Offering

On May 15, 2018 the Company announced the closing of a previously announced marketed public offering (the " May 2018 Offering ") of units (the “ Offering Units ”). The Company issued 117,453,862 Offering Units at a price of US$0.15 per Offering Unit for gross proceeds of approximately US$17.62 million, including the issuance of 3,453,862 Offering Units pursuant to the partial exercise of an over-allotment option granted to the underwriters of the May 2018 Offering. Each Unit consisted of one common share (an “ Offering Common Share ”) and one common share purchase warrant (an “ Offering Warrant ”), with each Offering Warrant entitling the holder thereof to purchase one Offering Common Share at a price of US$0.17 for a term of 18 months from the date of closing of the May 2018 Offering. Upon closing of the May 2018 Offering, the Offering Warrants began trading on the TSX under the symbol “PTM.WT.U”. The net proceeds of the May 2018 Public Offering, after expenses, was approximately US$15.0 million. The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the May 2018 Offering: (i) towards repayment of a loan facility and production payment termination fees due to LMM; and (ii) for general corporate and working capital purposes.

54

55

General

The Company is a platinum and palladium focused exploration, development and operating company conducting work primarily on mineral properties it has staked or acquired by way of option agreements or applications in the Republic of South Africa and in Canada.

The Company’s sole material mineral property is the Waterberg Project. The Company continues to evaluate exploration opportunities both on currently owned properties and on new prospects.

Principal Product

The Company’s principal product from the Waterberg Project, in accordance with the 2016 PFS, is planned to be a PGM bearing concentrate. The concentrate will contain certain amounts of eight elements comprised of platinum, palladium, rhodium, gold, ruthenium, iridium, copper and nickel. Pursuant to the Implats Transaction, Implats has acquired a right of first refusal to enter into an offtake agreement, on commercial arms-length terms, for the smelting and refining of mineral products from the Waterberg Project.

56

Specialized Skill and Knowledge

Various aspects of The Company’s business require specialized skills and knowledge, including the areas of geology, engineering, operations, drilling, metallurgy, permitting, logistical planning and implementation of exploration programs as well as legal compliance, finance and accounting. The Company faces competition for qualified personnel with these specialized skills and knowledge, which may increase its costs of operations or result in delays.

Pursuant to the Implats Transaction, Implats is an active participant in the completion of a DFS for the Waterberg Project. Should Implats exercise the Purchase and Development Option, Implats will become the majority owner and will have the right to appoint the manager of the Waterberg Project. Implats is one of the world’s foremost fully integrated producers of platinum and associated PGEs. The group produces approximately a quarter of the world’s supply of primary platinum. Implats’ operations are located on the Bushveld Complex in South Africa and the Great Dyke in Zimbabwe, two of the most significant PGE-bearing ore bodies in the world. In Southern Africa Implats is structured around five main operations namely Impala, Zimplats, Marula, Mimosa and Two Rivers with headquarters based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Employees and Contractors

The Company’s current complement of managers, staff and consultants in Canada consists of approximately 6 individuals. The Company’s complement of managers, staff, consultants, security and casual workers in South Africa consists of approximately 11 individuals, inclusive of 3 individuals active at the Waterberg Project conducting exploration and engineering activities related to the planned completion of a DFS expected in the first part of 2019. The Waterberg Project is operated by the Company utilizing its own staff and personnel. Contract drilling, geotechnical, engineering and support services are utilized as required. Operations at the Waterberg Project are funded by Waterberg JV Co. and its shareholders.

Foreign Operations

The Company conducts its business in South Africa. South Africa has a large and well-developed mining industry. This, among other factors, means the infrastructure in many areas is well-established, with well-maintained roads and highways as well as electricity distribution networks, water supply and telephone and communication systems. Electrical generating capacity has been strained by demand in recent years in South Africa, but additional capacity is currently under construction. Additional water infrastructure will also be required. See “Risk Factors”.

There is also access to materials and skilled labour in South Africa due to the existence of many platinum, chrome, gold and coal mines. Smelter complexes and refining facilities are also located in South Africa. South Africa has an established government, police force and judiciary as well as financial, health care and social institutions, although such institutions underwent significant change following the fall of apartheid and free elections in 1994, and are continuing to be developed. The system of mineral tenure was overhauled by new legislation in 2002, which came into force in 2004. Since 1994, South Africa has been considered an emerging democracy. See “Risk Factors”.

57

Social or Environmental Policies

Corporate Social Responsibility

Being a responsible corporate citizen means protecting the natural environment associated with its business activities, providing a safe workplace for its employees and contractors, and investing in infrastructure, economic development, and health and education in the communities where the Company operates so that it can enhance the lives of those who work and live there beyond the life of such operations. The Company takes a long term view of its corporate responsibility, which is reflected in the policies that guide its business decisions, and in its corporate culture that fosters safe and ethical behaviour across all levels of Platinum Group. The Company’s goal is to ensure that its engagement with its stakeholders, including its workforce, industry partners, and the communities where it operates, is continued, mutually beneficial and transparent. By building such relationships and conducting ourselves in this manner, the Company can address specific concerns of its stakeholders and work cooperatively and effectively towards achieving this goal.

Social and Labour Plans

The Waterberg Social and Labour Plan (the “ Waterberg Social and Labour Plan ”) is currently being developed pursuant to South African Department of Mineral Resources (“ DMR ”) guidelines for social and labour plans and a draft has been submitted in accordance with regulation 46 of the MPRDA together with the application for a mining right for the Waterberg Project. The objective of a social and labour plan is to align the Company’s social and labour principles with the related requirements established under Mining Charter 2018. These requirements include promoting employment and avoiding retrenchments, advancement of the social and economic welfare of all South Africans, contributing toward the transformation of the mining industry and contributing towards the socio-economic development of the communities proximal to the Waterberg Project. Contractors will be required to comply with the Waterberg Social and Labour Plan and policies, including commitment to employment equity and BEE, proof of competence in terms of regulations, commitment to undertake training programs, compliance with all policies relating to recruitment, training, health and safety, etc. In terms of human resources training, the Waterberg Social and Labour Plan will establish objectives for adult-based education training, learnerships and development of skills required by mining industry, portable skills training for transition into industries other than mining, education bursaries and internships. The Waterberg Social and Labour Plan will also plan to establish local economic development objectives for projects such as community centre refurbishment, high school refurbishment, water and reticulation projects, housing development, establishment of recreational parks and various other localized programmes for small scale industry, agriculture, entrepreneurship and health and education.

Labour in South Africa

The gold and platinum mining industries in South Africa witnessed significant labour unrest in recent years and demands for higher wages by certain labour groups. Both legal and illegal or “unprotected” strikes have occurred at several mines since the beginning of August 2012. In June 2014, the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union accepted a negotiated wage settlement to end a five-month long strike affecting a significant proportion of the platinum industry. To date, the Company has seen no adverse labour action on its operations in South Africa and the retrenchment processes at the Maseve Mine were peaceful and orderly. See “Risk Factors”.

58

Environmental Compliance

The Company’s current and future exploration and development activities, as well as future mining and processing operations, if warranted, are subject to various state, provincial and local laws and regulations in the countries in which the Company conducts its activities. These laws and regulations govern the protection of the environment, prospecting, development, production, taxes, labour standards, occupational health, mine safety, hazardous substances and other matters. Company management expects to be able to comply with those laws and does not believe that compliance will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s competitive position. The Company intends to obtain and maintain all licences and permits required by all applicable regulatory agencies in connection with its mining operations and exploration activities. The Company intends to maintain standards of compliance consistent with contemporary industry practice.

Competitive Conditions

The global PGM mining industry has historically been characterised by long-term rising demand from global automotive and fabrication sectors on the one hand and constrained supply sources on the other. South Africa’s PGM mining sector has been the largest and fastest growing sector in the South African mining industry until recently, representing approximately 80% of global supply. Since mid-2012 global economic uncertainty, recycling and slow growth have created a weak market for PGMs. Lower market prices for PGMs combined with labour unrest has caused stoppages and closures of some higher cost platinum mines and shafts in South Africa. Almost all of the South African platinum and palladium supply comes from the geographic constraints of the Western, Northern and Eastern Limbs of the Bushveld Complex, resulting in a high degree of competition for mineral rights and projects. South Africa’s PGM mining sector remains beholden to economic developments in the global automotive industry, which currently accounts for approximately 41% of the total global demand for platinum. A prolonged downturn in global automobile and light truck sales, resulting in depressed platinum prices, often results in declining production as unprofitable mines are shut down. Alternatively, strong automobile and light truck sales combined with strong fabrication demand for platinum, most often results in a more robust industry, creating competition for resources, including funding, labour, technical experts, power, water, materials and equipment. There is not a material seasonal effect or influence on the PGM market or business. Since late 2015 the price of palladium has approximately doubled due to rising automotive sector demand. The South African industry is dominated by three or four producers, who also control smelting and refining facilities. As a result, there is general competition for access to these facilities on a contract basis. If the Company moves towards production on the Waterberg Project, it will become exposed to many of the risks of competition described herein. See “Risk Factors”.

Mineral Property Interests

Under IFRS, the Company defers all acquisition, exploration and development costs related to mineral properties. The recoverability of these amounts is dependent upon the existence of economically recoverable mineral reserves, the ability of the Company to obtain the necessary financing to complete the development of the property, and any future profitable production; or alternatively upon the Company’s ability to dispose of its interests on an advantageous basis.

The Company’s key development project and exploration targets are located in the Bushveld Complex in South Africa. The Bushveld Complex is comprised of a series of distinct layers or reefs, three of which contain the majority of the economic concentrations of platinum group metals (together, “ PGMs ”, and the subset of 4E PGMs consisting of platinum, palladium, rhodium and gold, or the subset of 3E PGMs consisting of platinum, palladium and gold) within the Bushveld Complex: (i) the Merensky Reef (“ Merensky ” or “ MR ”), which occurs around the Western Limb of the Bushveld Complex, (ii) the Upper Group 2 Layer or Reef (“ UG2 ”), which occurs around the Eastern Limb of the Bushveld Complex and (iii) the Platreef (“ Platreef ”), found within the Northern Limb. These reefs exhibit extensive geological continuity and predictability and have an established history of economic PGM production. The Merensky, UG2 and Platreef have been producing PGMs since the 1920s, 1970s and 1990s, respectively.

59

For a further discussion of the Company’s material and non-material mineral properties, see Item 4.D. – Property, Plant and Equipment.

South African Regulatory Framework

The Company is subject to South African government regulations that affect all aspects of the Company’s operations. Accordingly, the sections below set out the primary laws and regulatory concepts to which the Company is subject.

60

Black Economic Empowerment in the South African Mining Industry

The transition from an apartheid regime to a democratic regime brought with it a commitment by the South African state, as enshrined in the Constitution, to take legislative and other measures to redress the results of past racial discrimination against black South Africans, or as the MPRDA and Mining Charter defines them, “HDPs. Under the MPRDA, the concept includes any association, the majority of whose members are HDPs as well as juristic persons if HDPs own and control the majority of the shares and control the majority of the shareholders’ votes.

This concept and process to take legislative and other measures to redress the results of past racial discrimination against black South Africans is known in South Africa as broad-based black economic empowerment, or “BEE”. The mining industry was one of many industries identified by the South African government as requiring reform to bring about equitable benefit from South Africa’s mineral industry to all South Africans and to promote local and rural development and social upliftment of communities affected by mining.

The regulatory regime governing the South African mining industry has therefore fundamentally changed over the past decade. Legislation governing mining and BEE within the mining sector includes, among other laws, the MPRDA, the Mining Codes and the Standards pursuant to the MPRDA, Mining Charter 2018, Mining Charter 2018 Scorecard and the Mining Titles Registration Act No. 16 of 1967 (as amended). The aforementioned legislation, however, is industry specific and the generic BEE regulatory framework in South Africa is regulated in terms of the BEE Act, which sets outs the South African government’s policy in respect of the promotion of BEE. The BEE Act also permits the Minster of Trade and Industry to publish generic BEE Codes of Good Practice (“ Generic BEE Codes ”), being codes of good practice that address, among other things, the indicators to measure BEE and the weightings to be attached to such indicators.

The Generic BEE Codes were originally published in 2007 and set out seven indicators or elements in terms of which BEE compliance is measured. Each element has a scorecard in terms of which various sub-elements are set out, together with a target for compliance with each sub-element and a corresponding number of weighting points. An entity’s BEE compliance is measured in terms of each of these scorecards and the aggregate score will then determine that entity’s BEE compliance level. Independent BEE verification agencies are authorized to verify an entity’s compliance and provide it with a verification certificate which will set out its score and confirm its BEE compliance level. The seven elements of BEE compliance set out in the original Generic BEE Codes are ownership (which measures the extent to which black people own the measured entity), management control (which measures the extent to which black people form part of the board of directors and top management of the entity), employment equity (which measures the extent to which black people are employed with the various management levels of the entity), skills development (which measures the extent to which the entity has undertaken skills training for the benefit of its black employees), preferential procurement (which measures the extent to which the entity procures goods and services from BEE compliant and black-owned companies), enterprise development (which measures the extent to which the entity has contributed towards the development of black-owned or BEE compliant companies), and socio-economic development (which measures the extent to which the entity has contributed towards the economic development of black people).

The original Generic BEE Codes were amended on October 11, 2013 and such amendments became effective from May 1, 2015. Generally speaking, the amended Generic BEE Codes seek to make BEE compliance more onerous to achieve. The total number of points required to achieve certain levels of BEE compliance have been increased. The elements of management control and employment equity have been consolidated into a single element referred to only as management control, and the elements of preferential procurement and enterprise development have been consolidated into a single element referred to as enterprise and supplier development. The elements of ownership, skills development and enterprise and supplier development are classified as priority elements to which minimum thresholds of compliance attach and subjects an entity to a penalty of a reduction in its BEE compliance status by one level if the entity fails to achieve any of such minimum thresholds.

61

In addition, the BEE Act was amended by The BEE Amendment Act, which came into operation on October 24, 2014.

The provisions of section 3(2) set out in the BEE Amendment Act states that “ in the event of any conflict between this Act and any other law in force immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2013, this Act prevails if the conflict specifically relates to a matter dealt with in this Act ” (the “ Trumping Provision ”). The BEE Amendment Act provides that section 3(2) will come into effect one year after the date on which the President proclaims the BEE Amendment Act into law and therefore became operative on October 24, 2015. However, on October 30, 2015 the Minister of Trade and Industry exempted the DMR from applying the Trumping Provision until October 31, 2016 on the basis that the alignment of the Mining Charter 2018 with the BEE Act and the BEE Codes was still ongoing. There has not been a further extension of this exemption.

Section 10(1)(a) set out in the BEE Amendment Act provides that “ every organ of state and public entity must apply any relevant code of good practice issued in terms of this Act in determining qualification criteria for the issuing of licences, concessions or other authorizations in respect of economic activity in terms of any law ”. This will require all governmental bodies to apply the Generic BEE Codes or other relevant codes of good practice when procuring goods or services or issuing licenses or other authorizations under any other laws, and to penalize fronting or misrepresentation of BEE information.

The provisions of section 3(2) and 10(1)(a) indicate that the DMR would be obliged to apply the provisions of the BEE Act and of any BEE code of good practice gazetted in terms of the BEE Act when issuing rights, permissions or permits in terms of the MPRDA in the future.

A code of good practice refers to the Generic BEE Codes or any sector-specific code of good practice which has been developed and gazetted in terms of the provisions of the BEE Act after consultation with the relevant industry stakeholders and the Department of Trade and Industry. It does not include Mining Charter 2018. The implications of the above provisions of the BEE Amendment Act are that unless a mining sector code is developed and gazetted, or unless a further exemption is granted by Ministers of Trade and Industry, the DMR would not be entitled to apply Mining Charter 2018 when issuing rights, permissions or permits (after commencement of the abovementioned sections of the BEE Amendment Act) and would be required to apply the Generic BEE Codes. While the target for ownership under the Generic BEE Codes is the same as in Mining Charter 2010 i.e. 26% (as opposed to the current Mining Charter 2018's 30%), the remaining elements in terms of which BEE compliance is measured are materially different from those set out in Mining Charter 2018. In addition, the extent of BEE compliance is determined under the Generic BEE Codes with reference to an entity’s overall score and corresponding BEE compliance level, and Mining Charter 2018s scorecard does not contain the same methodology. Thus, if the Generic BEE Codes were to apply to the mining industry, it would place the industry at a disadvantage and create uncertainty.

62

Section 10(2)(a) set out in the BEE Amendment Act provides that “ the Minister may, after consultation with the relevant organ of state or public entity, exempt the organ of state or public entity from a requirement contained in subsection (1) or allow a deviation therefrom if particular objectively verifiable facts or circumstances applicable to the organ of state or public entity necessitate a deviation ”. Such an exemption or deviation is required to be published in the government gazette. It seems possible, but it is not certain whether the DMR could apply for such an exemption in respect of the mining industry.

The DMR and industry bodies are aware of the implications of the Trumping Provision. Notwithstanding that there has been no further extension of the exemption in respect of the Trumping Provision, to date, the DMR continues to apply the provisions of Mining Charter 2018 and not the Generic BEE Codes.

It is important to bear in mind that none of Mining Charter 2018, Mining Charter 2018 Scorecard or the Mining Codes are drafted as legislative documents. They are instruments of policy and as such are frequently ambiguous, loosely worded and difficult to interpret with precision.

The MPRDA seeks to facilitate participation by HDPs in mining ventures. Complying with the HDP regime is a prerequisite for being granted and maintaining prospecting and mining rights. Every application for a mining right under the MPRDA must demonstrate that the granting of such right will:

The Mining Charter

The original mining charter was developed to give substance and guidance to the empowerment provisions under MPRDA, which came into effect on May 1, 2004. The original mining charter set out a number of targets which were to be achieved by mining companies by 2009 and 2014. Among other targets, mining companies had to achieve a 15% HDP ownership by 2009 and a 26% HDP ownership by 2014. Ownership relates to ownership of mining assets, whether through the holding of equity, partnership, joint venture or direct holding.

Notwithstanding the uncertainties in BEE legislation applicable to mining companies with regard to the measurement of HDP ownership, it is accepted practice (as confirmed in section 2.1.2 of the Mining Codes) that the so-called flow-through and modified flow-through principles are applicable to the calculation of indirectly held HDP interests (i.e. where there is partial HDP ownership in a corporate structure above the level of the company holding the prospecting or mining right). In terms of the flow-through principle, the level of indirect ownership, proportionally reduced to reflect partial HDP shareholding in intermediate companies, would be calculated to determine the proportional indirect HDP shareholding in the company holding the right. Under the modified flow-through principle, a company with more than 51% HDP ownership (defined as a Historically Disadvantaged Persons Owned and Controlled Company in Mining Charter 2018) may, at any one level in a corporate structure, attribute 100% HDP ownership to that company for the purposes of applying the flow-through principle.

On September 13, 2010, the Mining Charter, 2010 came into effect setting targets (some of which remained the same as those in the original mining charter) to be achieved by mining companies by December 31, 2014 (the implementation of which needed to be reported to the DMR by mining companies in 2015), which targets included:

63

Mining Charter 2010 included targets, measures and weightings by which mining right holders were assessed against the obligations according to Mining Charter 2010 Scorecard. Failure of a company to meet its obligations in relation to Mining Charter 2010 could lead to the suspension or cancellation of its New Order Rights and could have a negative impact on applications for New Order Rights.

The application for the Waterberg Project Mining Right will be adjudicated upon and granted in accordance with the ownership requirements of Mining Charter 2010, given that it was lodged and accepted prior to the coming into force of the current Mining Charter 2018.

On September 27, 2018, the Minister of Mineral Resources announced the implementation of Mining Charter 2018 which sets out new and revised targets to be achieved by mining companies, the most pertinent of these being the revised BEE ownership shareholding requirements for mining rights holders.

64

Mining Charter 2018 provides for the publication of 'Implementation Guidelines' by November 27, 2018. This creates greater uncertainty in measuring a mining right holder's progress towards, and compliance with, its commitments under Mining Charter 2018.

Under Mining Charter 2018, new mining rights holders will be required to have a minimum 30% BEE shareholding (a 4% increase from the required 26% under the Mining Charter 2010) which shall include economic interest plus a corresponding percentage of voting rights, per right or in the mining company which holds the right. Once the Waterberg Project Mining Right is granted, Waterberg JV Co. will have a period of 5 years within which to increase its BEE shareholding to 30%. Mining Charter 2018 remains unclear as to whether such shareholding will be required to be distributed amongst employees, communities and black entrepreneurs as detailed below, and if so, in what percentages.

A new mining right granted after the coming into effect of Mining Charter 2018 must have a minimum of 30% BEE shareholding, applicable for the duration of the mining right, which must be distributed as to (i) a minimum of 5% non-transferable carried interest to qualifying employees; (ii) a minimum of 5% non-transferrable carried interest to host communities, or a minimum 5% equity equivalent benefit; and (iii) a minimum of 20% effective ownership in the form of shares to a BEE entrepreneur, a minimum of 5% which must preferably be for women.

The equity equivalent benefit relating to communities refers to a 5% equivalent of the issued share capital, at no cost to a trust or similar vehicle set up for the benefit of host communities. The intention behind introducing this alternative is so that communities accessing the benefit of ownership will not be delayed. The host community would receive an economic benefit as if it was the holder of a 5% equity interest.

The carried interest of 5% to each of the community and the employees must be issued to them at no cost and free of encumbrance. The costs to the right holder of such issue can be recovered from the development of the mineral asset.

Mining right holders may claim an equity equivalent offset against a maximum 5% of a BEE Entrepreneur shareholding for beneficiation in accordance with a DMR approved Beneficiation Equity Equivalent Plan.

The Mining Charter 2018 also sets deadlines by which the BEE Shareholding must vest for new rights, namely a minimum of 50% must vest within two thirds of the duration of a mining right; and the prescribed minimum 30% target shall apply for the duration of a mining right.

Existing mining right holder who achieved a minimum of 26% BEE shareholding, or who achieved a 26% BEE shareholding but whose BEE shareholders exited prior to September 27, 2018 will be recognized as BEE ownership compliant for the duration of the mining right, but not for any period of renewal thereof.

A mining right holder will be required to invest in Human Resource Development by paying 5% of the "leviable amount", being the levy payable under the South African Skills Development Act, No. 97 of 1998, (excluding the mandatory statutory skills levy) towards essential skills development activities such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics skills as well as artisans, internships, apprentices, bursaries, literacy and numeracy skills for employees and non-employees (community members), graduate training programmes, research and development of solutions in exploration, mining, processing, technology efficiency (energy and water use in mining), beneficiation as well as environmental conservation and rehabilitation.

Mining right holders must promote economic development through developing and/or nurturing small, medium and micro enterprises and suppliers of mining goods and services. Within 6 months of implementation of the Mining Charter 2018, right holders must submit a 5-year plan indicating incremental implementation of inclusive procurement targets.

65

Holders must spend a minimum of 70% of their total mining goods procurement expenditure (excluding non-discretionary expenditure) on South African Manufactured Goods (with a local content of at least 60%) on procurement from stipulated BEE entities.

Mining right holders may invest in enterprise and supplier development against which they may offset their procurement obligations in accordance with the prescripts laid down In the Mining Charter 2018.

A minimum of 70% of a holder's total research and development budget must be spent on South African based research and development entities, either in the public or private sector and only South African based companies or facilities can be utilized for the analysis of all mineral samples across the mining value chain.

Mining Charter 2018 also provides for minimum employment equity thresholds at various levels of management. These include -

Mining right holders must also develop and implement a career progression plan (aligned with its Social and Labour Plan) consistent with the demographics of South Africa, which plan must provide for (i) career development matrices of each discipline (inclusive of minimum entry requirements and timeframes); (ii) develop individual development plans for employees; (iii) identify a talent pool to be fast tracked in line with needs; and (iv) provide a comprehensive plan with targets, timeframes and how the plan would be implemented.

Mining right holders must meaningfully contribute towards Mine Community Development with biasness towards mine communities both in terms of impact as well as in keeping with the principles of the social license to operate. This element, together with the ownership element are ring-fenced and require 100% compliance at all times. In consultation with relevant municipalities, mine communities, traditional authorities and affected stakeholders, mining right holders must identify developmental priorities of mine communities and make provision for such priorities in prescribed and approved SLPs, to be be published in English and one or two other languages commonly used within the mine community. Mining right holders who operate in the same area may collaborate on certain identified projects to maximize the socio-economic development impact in line with SLPs.

Holders must implement 100% of their SLP commitments in any given financial year of the mining right holder. Any amendments and/or variations to commitments set out in SLPs (including budgets) shall require approval in terms of section 102 of the MPRDA, and right holders will be required to consult with mine communities.

66

Housing and living conditions for mine workers as stipulated in the Housing and Living Conditions Standards, developed in terms of section 100(1)(a) of the MPRDA, including decent and affordable housing, provision for home ownership, provision for social, physical and economic integration of human settlements, secure tenure for the employees in housing institutions, proper health care services, affordable, equitable and sustainable health system and balanced nutrition. Under Mining Charter 2018, holders must submit housing and living conditions plans to be approved by the DMR after consultation with organized labor and the Department of Human Settlement. To provide clear targets and timelines for purposes of implementing the aforesaid housing and living condition principles, the Housing and Living Conditions Standard Guidelines shall be reviewed by the DMR within the near future.

Mining Charter 2018 provides, for the first time, a regime for junior miners who meet the qualifying criteria and grants such companies exemption from certain elements/targets. The regime for junior mining companies is limited to mining right holders who, either through holding a single or multiple mining rights, have a combined annual turnover of less than R150 million.

Mining right holders who have a turn-over of less that R10 million per annum are exempt from the following elements/targets set out in the Mining Charter 2018: Employment Equity Targets (if they have less than 10 employees); Inclusive Procurement Targets; as well as Enterprise and Supplier Development Targets, and are required to only comply with the following elements/targets Ownership element (but undefined as to composition of BEE shareholding); Employment Equity Targets (if they have more than 10 employees); Human Resource Development Targets; and Mine Community Development Targets. Mining right holders who have a turn-over of between R10 million and R 50 million per annum are required to comply with the following elements/target: Ownership element (but undefined as to composition of BEE shareholding); Human Resource Development Targets; Inclusive Procurement Targets; Employment Equity Targets (at group level); and Mine Community Development Targets.

New Order Mining and Prospecting Rights Under the MPRDA

All of the Company’s prospecting and mining rights are so-called new order rights (i.e. rights granted under the MPRDA) as opposed to old order rights, being rights granted under pre-MPRDA legislation. Under the MPRDA, mining companies operating in South Africa were required to apply for conversion of old order rights into new order prospecting and mining rights issued by the South African state in terms of the MPRDA. New order rights in respect of mining are granted for a maximum period of 30 years, with renewals of up to 30 years at a time. Prospecting rights are valid for a period of five years, with one renewal of up to three years. Furthermore, the MPRDA provides for a retention period after prospecting of up to three years with one renewal of up to two years, subject to certain conditions. The holder of a prospecting right granted under the MPRDA has the exclusive right to apply for and, subject to compliance with the requirements of the MPRDA, to be granted, a mining right in respect of the prospecting area in question.

The new order rights are transferable only with the approval of the Minister and are subject to various terms and conditions, including commencement of operations within specified periods, maintenance of continuing and active operations and compliance with work programs, social and labour plans, EMPs and empowerment requirements.

New order rights can be suspended or cancelled by the Minister if a holder has breached its obligations under the terms of the rights and has failed to remedy such breach after written notice of the breach from the Minister and after being given an opportunity to respond. In addition, mining rights could potentially be cancelled for non-compliance with the Mining Charter 2018.

67

Resource Nationalism

The concept of resource nationalism encompasses a range of measures, such as expropriation or taxation, whereby governments increase their economic interest in corporate entities exploiting natural resources, with or without compensation. The current South African government has publicly stated that it does not intend to nationalize the mining industry.

At its 53rd national conference in December 2012, the ANC debated its previously commissioned “State Intervention in the Minerals Sector” report (SIMS Report), and wholesale nationalization was rejected. It was resolved that state intervention in the economy would focus on beneficiation. Strategic minerals, which include platinum group metals, coal and iron ore, will be identified and special public policy measures may be put in place. Further state interventions could include “state ownership” through the state mining company, and mineral resource rents through the imposition of new taxes or a super-profits tax.

Environment

South Africa has a comprehensive and constantly evolving environmental regulatory framework, particularly relating to mining. The Constitution entrenches the right to an environment that is not harmful to human health or well-being and imposes a duty to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures. The Constitution and National Environmental Management Act (“ NEMA ”) grant legal standing to a wide range of people and interest groups to bring legal proceedings to enforce their environmental rights, such that claims can be made against private and public entities and the South African government.

Environmental impacts of mineral resource operations (including prospecting and mining of mineral resources and exploration and production of petroleum) are, at present, primarily regulated by four pieces of legislation, namely, the MPRDA, NEMA, National Environmental Management: Waste Act (“ NEMWA ”) and National Water Act (“ NWA ”).

South African environmental law is largely permit-based and requires businesses whose operations may have an environmental impact to obtain licenses and authorizations principally from the DMR and the DWS, which often contain stringent conditions.

Environmental legislation also stipulates general compliance requirements. It incorporates a “polluter pays” principle and also imposes a duty on a group of specified parties wider than the actual polluter to take reasonable measures to assess, prevent and address pollution (even that which was authorized by law). This duty is retrospective in its application. A failure to take such measures may result in governmental authorities taking measures against, and recovering costs from, a wider range of parties than the one on whom the duty primarily rests. This latter group includes a successor in title to a property and, based on international jurisprudence, is wide enough to include a lender or a shareholder of a company who caused the pollution, although the potential liability of shareholders and lenders has not yet been considered by South African courts.

NEMA provides for the appointment of Environmental Management Inspectors and Environmental Mineral Resource Inspectors at the Department of Environmental Affairs (“ DEA ”) and DMR respectively.

68

These inspectors have wide-ranging powers and can undertake both announced and unannounced inspections and investigations. Criminal prosecutions have been initiated and directives and compliance notices issued following a number of these inspections.

Under NEMA, it is a criminal offence for any person unlawfully and intentionally or negligently to commit any act or omission which causes, has caused or is likely to cause significant environmental pollution or degradation or unlawfully and intentionally or negligently commit any act or omission which detrimentally affects or is likely to affect the environment in a significant manner. A maximum criminal fine of up to Rand 10 million and/or a prison term of up to ten years may be imposed for such an offence. The NWA establishes a similar criminal offence in relation to water pollution.

Directives or compliance notices can also be issued under NEMA, the MPRDA or the NWA for the temporary or permanent shut down of facilities at a mining operation or the entire mining operation, due to environmental transgressions. NEMA also provides that directors and certain company officers can also be held liable in their personal capacity for the costs of rehabilitating environmental pollution or degradation.

The environmental regulation of mining has undergone a transition. NEMA is now the primary environmental legislation regulating mining and not the MPRDA. Due to this transition, the majority of the MPRDA’s environmental regulation provisions were deleted (“ Pre-MPRDA Amendment Act Environmental Provisions ”) and the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act, No. 25 of 2014 (“ NEMLAA” ) introduced specific provisions regulating mining into NEMA. The Minister of Mineral Resources has however retained the bulk of his environmental regulation competencies under the NEMLAA’s amendments, to be undertaken in accordance with NEMA. This transition has created some gaps which include that not all of the necessary amendments have yet commenced under the MPRDA and certain regulations under NEMA are outstanding.

Under the Pre-MPRDA Amendment Act Environmental Provisions, before 8 December 2014, environmental management plans and environmental management programmes (“ EMPs ”) were required to be approved by the relevant delegated authority at the DMR before a prospecting right or mining right respectively became effective.

In addition to requiring that an EMP be approved under the MPRDA, an environmental authorization (“ EA ”) was required for certain activities that are incidental to mining, listed in a series of Environmental Impact Assessment (" EIA ") Regulations published under the NEMA. This includes vegetation clearance; construction of roads, facilities in proximity to a watercourse and facilities that may cause pollution; and storage of dangerous goods, where the activities exceeded specified thresholds (“ Listed Activities ”). An EA was not required for mining or prospecting activities.

This position changed on 8 December 2014 when the 2014 EIA Regulations commenced under NEMA, replacing the 2010 EIA Regulations. Mining and prospecting activities that commenced after this date required an EA, as do associated infrastructure and earthworks directly related to the prospecting and extraction of a mineral resource.

There are presently no provisions in force in the MPRDA or NEMA deeming EMPs approved under the MPRDA to be EAs issued under the NEMA, which creates gaps in relation to the obligations of mineral right holders with an approved EMP. Certain 2013 amendments to the MPRDA (following the implementation of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act No. 49 of 2008 (“ MPRDA Amendment Act, 2008 ”)) introduced a deeming provision however it has not yet commenced. This provision provides that an EMP approved under the MPRDA before and at the time of the NEMA coming into force will be deemed to have been approved and an EA issued in terms of NEMA. The Amendment Bill proposes to amend the MPRDA Amendment Act, 2008’s deeming provision to correct the incorrect reference of the NEMA to the NEMLAA. The Amendment Bill has however not yet been enacted into law. There are also no transitional provisions deeming approvals to EMP applications that were submitted before NEMLAA and approved after NEMLAA to be deemed to be EAs. This has created the situation where strictly speaking applicants for mineral rights are now required to submit an application for an EA, despite an application for EMP approval being previously submitted. In practice however, the DMR views EMPs submitted under the MPRDA to be EAs.

69

NEMA requires an EA before Listed Activities commence and it is a criminal offence to commence such Listed Activity without the required EA. A person who has commenced a Listed Activity without an EA may apply for rectification of this state of affairs but would be required to pay a maximum administrative fine of R5 million, and may also face criminal penalties.

Under the NWA, water cannot be owned, but is instead held in trust for the people of South Africa under the State’s custodianship. A water use license (“ WUL ”) is required to undertake certain water uses specified in the NWA. This includes water storage; abstraction; disposal of waste water into the environment; dewatering a mine; and impacting on watercourse’s flow. Generally, large scale water users, such as mines, are required to either apply for WULs or, in certain cases, only to register water uses if small water volumes are abstracted or stored or the impacts to watercourses are low. In certain instances, an entity may continue with a water use that was conducted lawfully prior to 1998 under the predecessor to the NWA, the Water Act, No. 54 of 1956 , without the requirement for a WUL. Conducting a water use without the required WUL is unlawful.

Regulations published under the NWA regulate water use in relation to mining activities, providing for limitations on the location of mining infrastructure and requirements for separation of dirty and clean water systems. If a water use or water management is unlawful, the DWS may issue administrative directives to enforce the NWA’s provisions or stop the unlawful water use. Criminal proceedings can also be instituted. Penalties for offences are a maximum fine and/or imprisonment of Rand 200,000 and five years, respectively. Upon a second conviction, the maximum fine and/or imprisonment are Rand 400,000 and ten years, respectively. While significant progress has been made by the DWS in processing pending WUL applications, a backlog remains.

The National Environmental Management Air Quality Act No. 39 of 2004 (“ AQA ”) regulates air pollution in South Africa and prohibits the undertaking of activities listed under AQA, including certain mining related and processing activities, without an atmospheric emission license. Minimum emission standards have been set for each listed activity. Facilities that were operational before these regulations came into force were afforded a “grace period” within which to comply with the more stringent air emission standards contained in the Regulations until 2015. If a facility did not comply with the 2015 air emission standards, upgrading of the facilities was necessary. Such facilities will need to comply with even more stringent air emission standards from 2020. Additional upgrades may therefore also be required before 2020 to comply with the 2020 air emission standards, for which significant capital expenditures (“ CAPEX ”) may be required. Alternatively, an application to postpone the time period for compliance with air emission standards may be possible but the grant of any postponement cannot be guaranteed.

NEMWA regulates the storage, treatment, recycling and disposal of waste, among other things, including waste generated by the mining sector. Its provisions are also relevant generally to the Company’s operations. Waste management licenses (“ WMLs ”) are required for certain waste management activities, dependent on certain thresholds in relation to the waste. Although WMLs are generally not required for waste storage, such activities must comply with certain norms and standards. Residue stockpiles and deposits relating to prospecting, mining, exploration or production activities regulated under the MPRDA were previously exempt from NEMWA. This was changed by amendments under the NEMLAA and WMLs were required from the Minister for residue stockpiles and deposits since September 2, 2014, if they constitute “waste” and if they fall above the thresholds for which a WML is required, unless an entity “lawfully conducted” these activities prior to September 2, 2014. The National Environmental Laws Amendment Bill B14D-2017 (" NEMA Bill ") has proposed amendments to NEMWA such that the regulation of residue stockpiles and deposits are removed from NEMWA and will be regulated by NEMA. If so, WMLs will not be required for residue stockpiles and deposits. In terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations, an EA would however be required.

70

Both the MPRDA and NEMA have provisions regulating rehabilitation and closure, which are not entirely consistent. The MPRDA provides that a mineral right holder remains liable for any environmental liability, pollution, ecological degradation, the pumping and treatment of extraneous water, compliance to the conditions of the EA and the management and sustainable closure of a mine, until the Minister of Mineral Resources has issued a closure certificate (“ Rehabilitation and Closure Liability ”). NEMA provides that a mineral right holder remains responsible for Rehabilitation and Closure Liability notwithstanding the issue of a closure certificate.

Under the MPRDA and NEMA, when the Minister issues a closure certificate, he may retain any portion of such financial provision for latent and residual safety, health or environmental impact which may become known in the future.

The Pre-MPRDA Amendment Act Environmental Provisions required that financial provision for environment rehabilitation and closure costs must be provided by an applicant for a mineral right prior to the approval of an EMP. NEMA now requires that this financial provision must be made prior to the issuing of an EA under NEMA.

New Financial Provision Regulations in regard to rehabilitation were published under NEMA on November 20, 2015, which have been highly contentious due to gaps and contradictions with the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 ; MPRDA and NEMA. They will require a substantial increase in financial provision required for rehabilitation, as they are far more onerous and now require financial provision to be provided for annual rehabilitation and, more significantly, the remediation of latent or residual environmental impacts which may become known in the future including the pumping and treatment of polluted or extraneous water (“ Future Rehabilitation ”). The Minerals Council of South Africa (formerly the Chamber of Mines) has stated that the Financial Provision Regulations could have a crippling effect on the mining industry. The Financial Provision Regulations are the subject of a recent High Court application for an order clarifying their legality and/or meaning. Two sets of proposed amendments were published to the Financial Provision Regulations which, if enacted into law, may resolve some of the gaps and contradictions. A further set of proposed amendments is anticipated to be published shortly. An extension has been granted for compliance with the Financial Provision Regulations to February 2020. This extension is ambiguously drafted but appears to apply to companies who submitted an application for a mining right or holders of rights where the application was submitted or right was granted prior to the Financial Provision Regulations coming into force on 20 November 2015. Applicants for new mining rights submitted after 20 November 2015 are however still required to provide financial provision in terms of the Financial Provision Regulations. Trust funds may only be used for Future Rehabilitation and not annual or final rehabilitation (being the decommissioning and closure of the prospecting, exploration, mining or production operations at the end of the life of operations). The financial vehicle used for Future Rehabilitation must, on issuance of a closure certificate, be ceded to the Minister or if a trust fund is used, the trustees must authorise payment to the Minister. The aforesaid is contradictory to the Minister’s discretion in the MPRDA and NEMA to retain a portion of the financial provision.

71

A mining or prospecting right can be suspended or cancelled under the MPRDA or a mining right application may be refused if there is non-compliance with environmental legislation.

Mine Safety

Mine safety in South Africa is governed by the MHSA, which is enforced by the Inspectorate of Mine Health and Safety, a part of the DMR. The reporting provisions of the MHSA are aligned with the International Labour Organization’s Code of Practice on Recording and Notification of Occupational Accidents and Diseases. Under the MHSA, the Company is obligated, among other things, to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the Company’s mines are designed, constructed and equipped to provide conditions for safe operation and a healthy working environment and are commissioned, operated, maintained and decommissioned in such a way that employees can perform their work without endangering their health and safety or that of any other person. The Company is also obliged to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that persons who are not employees, but who may be directly affected by the Company’s mining activities are not exposed to any hazards relating to their health and safety. The MHSA also authorises mine inspectors to issue safety compliance notices to mines under section 55 of the MHSA and, should the inspectors feel that the action is warranted, to temporarily close part or all of the operations under powers conferred by section 54 of the MHSA, pending compliance with the - compliance notice.

An employer who has been instructed to temporarily close a mine or any part thereof in a section 54 notice has the remedy of approaching the Labour Court for urgent relief to suspend the operation of the section 54 notice until a review application to set aside that notice is determined by the Labour Court.

The Mine Health and Safety Amendment Act, No. 74 of 2008 , which came into effect on May 30, 2009, criminalizes violations of the MHSA, increases the maximum fines to Rand 1 million per occurrence and creates the possibility that mining rights could be revoked for continued safety violations. A number of guidelines on the implementation of mandatory codes of practice under sections 9(2) and 9(3) of the MHSA have been issued by the Chief Inspector of Mines and govern the provision of personal protective equipment for women in the SA Mining Industry; trackless mobile machines; cyanide management; underground rail bound equipment; conveyor belt installation for transport of mineral, material or personnel; and risk-based fatigue management.

Royalty Payments

The Royalty Act, imposes a royalty on the first transfer of refined or unrefined minerals, payable to the state, calculated on the actual or deemed gross sales amount at the statutorily determined saleable condition (i.e. whether the mineral is in a refined or unrefined condition as determined in accordance with Schedule 1 and 2, respectively, of the Royalty Act).

The royalty rate in respect of refined minerals is calculated by dividing earnings before interest and taxes, or “ EBIT ” (as defined for purposes of the Royalty Act), by the product of 12.5 times gross revenue, calculated as a percentage, plus an additional 0.5% . EBIT refers to the taxable mining income of the holder of the right (with certain exceptions such as no deduction for interest payable and foreign exchange losses) before assessed losses but after capital expenditure. There is also an arm’s length adjustment, where applicable. A maximum royalty rate of 5% of revenue applies to refined minerals.

72

The royalty rate in respect of unrefined minerals is calculated by dividing EBIT by the product of nine times gross revenue, calculated as a percentage, plus an additional 0.5% . A maximum royalty rate of 7% applies to unrefined minerals.

Mining Taxation Review

In the 2013 Budget Speech, the Minister of Finance announced that the mineral and petroleum royalty regime has broadened the South African tax base and allowed for increased revenue during periods of high commodity prices, while providing relief to marginal mines when commodity prices and profitability are low. The broader review of the South African tax system will consider whether this approach is sufficiently robust and assess what the most appropriate mining tax regime is to ensure that South Africa remains a competitive investment destination.

To give effect to announcements made by the Minister of Finance in his 2013 budget speech, the Davis Tax Committee (" DTC ") was established to assess South Africa’s tax policy framework and its role in supporting the objectives of inclusive growth, employment, development and fiscal sustainability. The Terms of Reference of the Davis Tax Committee includes a review of the current mining tax regime. The Davis Tax Committee submitted its First Interim Report on Mining on July 1, 2015 and made various recommendations, including that:

These recommendations are still under consideration by the South African government.

The DTC released its second and final report on hard-rock mining in December 2016.

Amongst the various proposals, the DTC recommended that the upfront CAPEX write-off regime should be discontinued and replaced with an accelerated CAPEX depreciation regime. The accelerated CAPEX depreciation regime will provide for write-off periods in line with that of manufacturing, namely on a 40/20/20/20. The removal of the upfront CAPEX tax allowance regime paves the way for the removal of ring fences aimed at preventing the set-off of future CAPEX expenditure against the tax base of other mining operations and against non-mining income.

The second and final report also indicated that comprehensive review of carbon taxes has been undertaken by a separate stream within the DTC and therefore the report contains no comments on carbon taxes.

The Minister of Finance might adopt these recommendations which in turn might impact of the net present value and internal rate of return of the project.

73

Exchange Control

South African law provides for Exchange Control which, among other things, regulates the flow of capital from the Common Monetary Area of South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho and eSwatini (formerly ESwatini) (“ CMA” ). The Currency and Exchanges Act, No. 9 of 1933 empowers the President of South Africa to make regulations in regard to any matter directly or indirectly relating to currency, banking or exchanges. The Minister of Finance is responsible for all matters regarding exchange control policy, and certain of these powers and functions have been delegated to the South African Reserve Bank, more specifically the Financial Surveillance Department.

The Exchange Control Regulations, which are administered by the Financial Surveillance Department are applied throughout the CMA and regulate transactions involving South African exchange control residents, including companies. The basic purpose of the Exchange Control Regulations is to mitigate the negative effects caused by a decline of foreign capital reserves in South Africa, which may result in the devaluation of the Rand against other currencies. It is the stated objective of the authorities to achieve equality of treatment between residents and non-residents for exchange control purposes as it relates to inflows and outflows of capital. While the South African government has relaxed exchange controls in recent years, the Company expects current exchange controls to remain in place for the foreseeable future.

The Company is subject to various forms of such controls. The Company is generally not permitted to export capital from South Africa, hold foreign currency, incur indebtedness denominated in foreign currencies or acquire an interest in a foreign venture without the approval of the relevant South African exchange control authorities.

However, there are no exchange control restrictions between the members of the CMA as they form a single exchange control territory. Lesotho, Namibia and Eswatini have their own exchange control authorities as well as their own acts or regulations and rulings but in terms of the Common Monetary Area Agreement, their application must be at least as strict as that of South Africa. Accordingly, the Company will not require the approval of the Financial Surveillance Department for investments and transfers of funds from South Africa to other CMA countries.

Carbon Tax/Climate Change Policies

After having published a number of papers on the introduction of a carbon tax, the South African government released the Second Draft Carbon Tax Bill 2017 (the “ Bill ”) published in December 2017, together with an Explanatory Memorandum in respect of the Bill (the “ Explanatory Memorandum ”). The Bill was open for comment until March 9, 2018 and is now being considered by the South African Parliament. The South African Minister of Finance recently announced that carbon tax will be implemented from June 1, 2019.

In terms of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, South Africa’s greenhouse gas (“ GHG ”) emissions are said to firstly peak from the period 2020 until 2025, then plateau from the period 2025 until 2035, whereafter GHG emissions are said to decline from 2036. The introduction of carbon tax will also take place in a phased manner, which allows for developmental challenges faced by South Africa, encourages investment in more energy efficient technology and ensures that South Africa’s competitiveness is not being compromised.

74

The South African national treasury noted in the Explanatory Memorandum that the impact of the first phase has been designed to be revenue neutral, and revenues will be recycled by way of reducing the current electricity generation levy, credit rebate for the renewable energy premium, as well as a tax incentive for energy efficiency savings.

Section 5 of the Bill proposes that the rate of carbon tax will be R120 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2e) above the tax free allowances, with an annual increase of the consumer price inflation plus 2% until December 31, 2022. Following December 31, 2022, the rate of the increase is required to be made in line with inflation as determined by Statistics South Africa going forward.

Sections 7 to 13 of the Bill allows for the following tax-free allowances which were extensively considered following the publication of the First Draft Carbon Tax Bill 2015 (First Bill), and commented upon in the 2015 First Bill Response Document:

On November 12, 2018 the National Treasury published the Draft Regulation on the Carbon Offset for a second round of public comment and further consultation. These draft regulations specifically address the carbon offset allowance. Only certain new approved projects will qualify, including clean development mechanism projects under the Kyoto Protocol (an amendment to the United Nations International Treaty on Global Warming in which participating nations commit to reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide, negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997), verified carbon standard projects, and gold standard projects. The offset may be utilised for periods ranging between 7 and 100 years, depending on the project. Various administrative procedures have been prescribed for registering for and claiming the offset allowance.

A taxpayer is only entitled to receive the sum of the allowances mentioned above in respect of a tax period to the extent that the sum of the allowances does not exceed 95% of the total GHG emissions.

Taking into account the tax-free thresholds, this would imply that an initial effective carbon tax rate will be as low as R6 to R48 per ton CO2e.

South African Companies Act

The Company’s South African subsidiaries are subject to the South African Companies Act, No. 71 of 2008 (“ Companies Act ”) which came into force on May 1, 2011. The aim of the Companies Act is to modernize company law in South Africa so that it is comparable with leading jurisdictions around the world.

75

The Companies Act has introduced numerous new legal concepts into South African company law, and there are therefore some areas of uncertainty in the application and implementation of the Companies Act in these early stages of its existence. Various compliance obligations have been brought about for companies and their boards, including a requirement to ensure that a company’s constitutional documents are aligned with the Companies Act, and that any shareholders’ agreements that are in place are aligned with the company’s memorandum of incorporation and the Companies Act. There was essentially a two-year “grace period” for such alignment process to take place, in that, subject to certain exceptions, for two years after the commencement date of the Companies Act (May 1, 2011), a pre-existing company’s shareholders’ agreement and/or constitutional documents would have prevailed in the case of any inconsistency with the Companies Act. The position currently, after the lapse of the grace period, is that a company’s memorandum of incorporation prevails over the shareholders’ agreement and the Companies Act in turn prevails over both. Although not peremptory, the Company has registered new memoranda of incorporation for the Company’s South African subsidiaries.

The Companies Act also requires that certain categories of companies have in place certain committees, namely audit committees (for all public and state-owned companies) and social and ethics committees (for all listed public companies and state-owned companies as well as other companies that reach a certain “public interest score” in terms of the Companies Regulations, 2011). The “public interest score” takes into account the number of shareholders and employees of the company, as well as the amount of the company’s debt and annual turnover.

Failure to comply with the Companies Act can lead to compliance notices being issued by the CIPC, administrative fines and civil liability for damages caused by non-compliance. The Company’s South African subsidiaries may also be liable under the Companies Act to “any” other person for any loss or damage suffered by that person as a result of the Company’s subsidiary’s non-compliance with the Companies Act.

The Companies Act extends shareholders’ rights and recourse against companies and directors. Also, directors, prescribed officers and committee members will now face more extensive and stricter grounds for personal liability for their actions in carrying out their functions within the company than was the case under the previous regime. The Companies Act introduces class action suits against companies, directors and company officers by persons whose rights are affected by the company. Companies will thus face a greater risk of litigation and the costs thereof. Minority shareholders’ rights in the context of mergers and other fundamental transactions have also been increased substantially, such as the introduction of appraisal rights and the ability to set aside and review special resolutions approving such transactions. This could result in the hindrance of such transactions.

The Companies Act has also introduced fairly extensive regulation of financial assistance given among related and inter related companies, in that there must be shareholder approval, compliance with solvency and liquidity tests, and fairness and reasonableness in relation to such financial assistance. This for instance affects intra group loan and security arrangements, as well transactions with third parties where guarantees or other security within a group of companies is given. This affects financial assistance given by South African companies and would accordingly affect financial assistance given by South African companies to non-South African related entities.

The Companies Act prohibits companies from creating any further par value shares. If a company wishes to increase its share capital, it will have to convert all of its pre-existing par value shares into shares of no par value. The revenue authorities have issued a ruling with respect to the tax treatment of such conversions to the effect that such conversions shall not be viewed as “disposals”. This may become relevant in respect of the Company’s South African subsidiaries should their share capital be required to be increased at any stage for whatever reason.

76

An important innovation of the Companies Act is that of business rescue, which is modelled to some extent on the United States “Chapter 11” bankruptcy procedures. Business rescue is a largely non-judicial, commercial process that aims to rescue a financially distressed company and maximize the likelihood of the company’s continued existence on a solvent basis.

Companies in South Africa can be deregistered if they fail to timeously lodge their annual returns. This means that the company ceases to exist as a separate juristic person, and that all of its rights and assets devolve to the state by operation of law. A company’s registration can be reinstated by application either to the CIPC or the High Court. Currently, under the Companies Act there is uncertainty in the case-law around the exact legal consequences of such reinstatement and whether the rights and assets automatically re-vest, with retrospective effect, in the company. The Company ensures that at all times the requisite filings and returns of its South African subsidiaries with CIPC are up-to-date and thereby ensures that such subsidiaries are not deregistered.

Land Use

The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (" SPLUMA ") prescribes principles for the regulation of land use in South Africa on a national, provincial and municipal level. However, land use planning is mainly regulated on a municipal level since municipalities are constitutionally empowered to regulate the effective administration of land use planning within their respective jurisdictions. Municipal land use planning is regulated through municipal planning by-laws, spatial development frameworks and land use or zoning schemes. Land-use or zoning schemes reflect all permissible land use rights in respect of land situated within the municipality's area of jurisdiction. Deviations from the land-use or zoning scheme are only permissible upon application for the necessary departure, land use consent or re-zoning application, as regulated by the applicable scheme and the relevant municipal planning by-law read with SPLUMA.

While previously it was in dispute whether municipal planning had the power to regulate mining activities, April 2012 Constitutional Court judgments in the cases of Maccsand (Proprietary) Limited v City of Cape Town and Others and Minister for Mineral Resources v Swartland Municipality and others confirmed that town planning approvals and consents are required for mining activities. A High Court decision has indicated that such consents will likewise be required for prospecting activities. The effect of these judgments is that all mining and prospecting operations need to be conducted on land which is appropriately zoned for mining or prospecting. Mining companies run the risk of being interdicted from continuing with their operations pending a re-zoning if the land on which they are operating is not appropriately zoned. The practical implications of complying with these judgments are numerous. These include that there may be different land uses on one property, particularly where only prospecting is taking place. These implications will need to be considered further by the Company’s operations. This is further complicated by the fact that there are several provincial land use planning laws for different provinces.

In addition to statutory controls, certain private law rights, such as the real rights created by way of registered restrictive conditions of title or servitudes, may also impact on land use planning in general. Land use or zoning schemes are subject to the real rights created by restrictive conditions of title. The implication is that if a land-use or zoning schemes permit a land use which is prohibited by a restrictive condition of title, such condition will first have to be removed in terms of the relevant legislation (municipal planning by-laws read with SPLUMA). Servitudes may also impact on land use planning, for instance servitudes registered in respect of infrastructure. Contravention of these real rights may result in a demolition order being granted in respect of unlawful development.

77

Another aspect which requires consideration is who should apply for such re-zoning. Although land owners would typically be the applicant, the Company’s operations are not always conducted on land which the Company owns. Accordingly, the Company may have to obtain a power of attorney from the land owner to procure amendments to land use or zoning schemes in municipalities in which the Company intends to prospect or mine and has obtained rezoning permission where required.

Dealing in Precious Metals

All operations which acquire, refine, beneficiate, possess or dispose of gold, any metals of the platinum group, or any ores of such metals, are required to obtain authorisations to do so under the Precious Metals Act No. 37 of 2007. These authorisations include metal beneficiation licences, refining licences and precious metals export approvals. Applications for such authorisations must be made to the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator. Refining licences can be issued for up to 30 years, whilst precious metals beneficiation licences can be issued for periods of up to ten years. The issue of certain licences under the Precious Metals Act requires that the applicant be complaint with the BEE provisions of the Mining Charter 2018.

Land Claims

Under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (" Restitution Act "), as amended, any person who was dispossessed of rights in land in South Africa after June 19, 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices without payment of just and equitable compensation is granted certain remedies and is entitled to redress. In terms of the Restitution Act, persons entitled to institute a land claim were required to lodge their claims by December 31, 1998.

The Restitution Act also entitles the South African Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform (" Minister ") to acquire ownership of land or rights in land by way of expropriation and to transfer the expropriated land or rights in land to successful claimants. Notably, the Minister may elect not to expropriate land and may provide alternative relief to the claimant, as directed by section 25(7) of the Constitution. Expropriation would be subject to provisions of the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975 and section 25(2) of the Constitution, which provide, in general, for just and equitable compensation.

The South African Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform may not, however, restore land to a claimant without a court order or an agreement being reached between the affected parties for the purposes of achieving restitution.

The Restitution Amendment Act came into effect on July 1, 2014. The Restitution Amendment Act introduced significant amendments to the Restitution Act, most notably allowing for land claims by persons previously disposed of land under apartheid laws to again be submitted, despite the previous cut-of date having expired approximately 15 years ago. The new period for lodging claims will be until June 30, 2019, which may arguably create a possible resurgence of new restitution claims. However, in Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others v Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and Others, the Constitutional Court found that the Restitution Amendment Act was invalid as parliament failed to satisfy its obligation to facilitate public involvement in accordance with section 72(1)(a) of the Constitution. As a result, the Constitutional Court interdicted the Commission of Restitution of Land Rights from processing claims lodged from July 1, 2014 until all claims submitted prior to December 31, 1998 in terms of section 6(1)(a) of the Restitution Act have been finalised. Parliament has since this judgment circulated a bill, which will repeal the Amendment Act, once promulgated. In terms of this bill, the new period for the lodging of claims will still be until June 30, 2019.

78

In order to substantiate a claim for restitution, a person is required to demonstrate that:

Under the Restitution Act a successful claimant may be granted either return of the dispossessed land (referred to as “restoration”) or equitable redress (which includes the granting of an appropriate right in alternative state-owned land; or payment of compensation). If restoration is claimed, the Restitution Act requires, inter alia , the feasibility of such restoration to be considered. Under recent case law, restoration of land may only be given in circumstances where a claimant can use the land productively, with the feasibility of restoration being dependent on the costs.

The procedure for lodging a land claim is that a claim must be lodged with the Land Claims Commissioner. The land claim will then be investigated by the Land Claims Commissioner, after which the claim will be published in the Government Gazette and in the media circulating nationally and in the relevant province. The Restitution Act provides that, if at any stage during the course of the investigation of a land claim, it becomes evident that:

Beneficiation

The beneficiation of mineral resources in South Africa is regulated by three main pieces of legislation, namely the MPRDA, through section 26 thereof, the Precious Metals Act, No. 37 of 2005 and the Diamonds Act, No. 58 of 1986 (as amended).

79

In addition to the legislative framework aimed at promoting local beneficiation of minerals, the DMR has developed and adopted a beneficiation strategy which identifies value chains for the purpose of beneficiation of certain minerals in South Africa (which is also in line with the developmental goals set-out in the National Development Plan adopted by the South African government). The Mining Charter 2018 (as discussed above) also includes an incentive for mining companies to offset the value of the level of beneficiation achieved by the company against a portion of its BEE Entrepreneur ownership requirement, not exceeding 15%, in an effort to promote local beneficiation.

The legislation at the center of the initiation or promotion of beneficiation of mineral resources is the MPRDA. Section 26 of the MPRDA regulates the Minister’s power to initiate and promote beneficiation of minerals in South Africa. The term ‘beneficiation’ was not defined by the MPRDA. The MPRDA Amendment Act, 2008 introduced a definition for beneficiation, which will again be amended by the Amendment Bill. The Amendment Bill defines beneficiation as, “ the transformation, value addition or downstream beneficiation of a mineral and petroleum resource (or a combination of minerals) to a higher value product, over baselines to be determined by the Minister, which can either be consumed locally or exported ”. As the section currently reads, the Minister may prescribe levels of beneficiation of a particular mineral should he establish, on advice from the Minerals and Mining Board and consulting with the Minister of Trade and Industry, that a particular mineral can be beneficiated economically in South Africa. Further, a person who intends to beneficiate any minerals mined in South Africa, outside of the country may only do so with the written consent of and in consultation with the Minister.

Labour Relations Act

The Constitution gives every person the right to fair labour practices. The Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995 (“ LRA ”) is the principal legislation that gives effect to the framework in which employees, employers and industrial relations at an individual and collective level are regulated. As a premise the LRA regulates the manner in which employees, employers, trade unions and employer’s organizations interact and engage with one another in the work place. This includes processes related to collective bargaining, wage determination, determination of terms and conditions of employment, the formulation of industrial policy and employee participation in the decision-making processes.

The LRA framework holistically is geared at the protection of employee and employer rights through various structures. Principally the LRA allows for the creation of trade unions and employer’s organizations. The extent of entitlement of the trade union is subject to the size of its membership base. Depending on the number of employees who are members of the trade union, the trade union will be allowed access to the workplace, representation at the workplace, to have meetings at the workplace and to access to information concerned with the employment of the employees. To be entitled to enter into collective agreements with the employer, the trade union must have as its members the majority of the employees at the workplace. The LRA endorses a co-operative approach whereby two or more trade unions can aggregate their membership for the purposes of achieving majority status in a collective bargaining unit or forum.

Collective agreements entered into between the trade union and the employer will bind all employees employed by the employer, regardless of their trade union affiliations, for the whole period of the agreement. The LRA does not provide for a statutory duty to bargain collectively or otherwise, and therefore such conduct is purely a voluntary decision.

80

At a greater level the LRA allows for the creation of bargaining and statutory councils. Such councils can be established both for more than one registered trade union or employer’s organization. Such councils will be established per sector or area. Councils in this regard will, amongst others, be entitled to conclude collective agreements and to engage in the resolution of disputes.

If a dispute between the employer and employee arises the LRA clearly delineates the lawful context in which this may occur. As a premise the LRA strictly stipulates and regulates the requirements for a lawful strike, lockout or picketing. In this regard the LRA expressly identifies who is allowed to engage in industrial action of this nature, which processes must be followed and for which purposes employees and employers may engage in such industrial action. Should the industrial action require the parties to engage in a process of consultation and negotiation, the LRA also prescribes the procedures to be followed.

If the conduct of the parties, for whatever reason, result in the dismissal of employees the LRA establishes the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“ CCMA ”) as a principal forum for the resolution of disputes resulting from the dismissal. The LRA defines unlawful dismissals as being either automatically or not automatically unfair. The type of dismissal will depend on the nature thereof and the prevailing circumstances at the time of dismissal, an example being dismissals arising from operational requirements.

A process of mediation and conciliation is pre-emptory in this regard. Should the dispute remain unresolved, parties will be required to enter into a process of arbitration, and the award made by the Commissioner would be final.

Employment Equity Act

The Employment Equity Act , No. 55 of 1998 (" EEA ") places an obligation on employers to promote equal opportunity in the workplace by, amongst other things, eliminating any forms of unfair discrimination in the workplace.

Section 6 of the EEA prohibits any employment practice or policy which discriminates, directly or indirectly, against any employee on any 'arbitrary ground' or one or more of the grounds specifically listed in the section –

Where discrimination is alleged on one of the specified grounds, it is presumed to be unfair; if the discrimination is based on some other arbitrary ground, the complainant must establish unfairness.

Pursuant to recent amendments, the EEA now provides that a difference in the terms and conditions of employment between employees of the same employer, which are performing the same or substantially the same work or work of equal value, amounts to unfair discrimination. It is important to note that the relevant provision refers to 'a difference in the terms and conditions' of employment and is not only limited to a difference in remuneration. Nevertheless, to prove such discrimination, the employee will need to demonstrate that the reason for the difference in treatment is based on one of the listed grounds or any other arbitrary ground.

81

Any party may refer a dispute for unfair discrimination to the CCMA which, in turn, must attempt to resolve the dispute through conciliation. Should the conciliation be unsuccessful, either party may refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.

Alternatively, an employee may refer the dispute directly to the CCMA for arbitration if that specific employee earns below the earnings threshold as prescribed by the Minister of Labour. The current earnings threshold is R205 433.30 per annum. Irrespective of the foregoing, the employee may also directly approach the CCMA to resolve the dispute through arbitration where the employee's claim for unfair discrimination is based on alleged sexual harassment. Then again, the parties can also agree to refer the matter to the CCMA for arbitration.

The Company’s material subsidiaries as at August 31, 2018 were comprised of one wholly-owned company, a 49.9% holding in a second company, and a direct and indirect 50.02% holding in a third company, all of which are incorporated under the company laws of the Republic of South Africa. The following chart represents the Company’s corporate organization as at the date of filing of this Annual Report:

Notes

82

As at the date of filing of this Annual Report, the Company’s only material mineral property is the Waterberg Project (the “ Waterberg Project ”), which is comprised of two adjacent project areas formerly known as the Waterberg Joint Venture Project and the Waterberg Extension Project. The Waterberg Project is held by Waterberg JV Co., in which the Company is the largest owner, with a 50.02% beneficial interest, of which 37.05% is held directly by PTM RSA and 12.974% is held indirectly through PTM RSA’s 49.9% interest in Mnombo, a Broad-Based Socio-Economic Empowerment (“ BEE ”) company which holds 26.0% of Waterberg JV Co. The remaining interests in Waterberg JV Co. are held as to 21.95% by a nominee of JOGMEC and 15.0% by Implats. PTM RSA is the manager of Waterberg JV Co. Waterberg JV Co. and its shares are governed by a shareholders agreement (the “ Waterberg Shareholders Agreement ”) and its memorandum of incorporation. To cause the board of directors of Waterberg JV Co. to take action, PTM RSA must generally obtain the approval of the board representatives of at least one other shareholder, which may be Mnombo, in which the Company has a 49.9% interest. In addition, certain matters must be approved by a majority, 80% or 90% vote of the Waterberg JV Co. shareholders, depending on the matter, or, in certain cases, by specific shareholders. The Waterberg Shareholders Agreement confirms the principles of BEE compliance and contemplates the potential transfer of equity and the issuance of additional equity to one or more broad based black empowerment partners, at fair value in certain circumstances, including a change in law or imposition of a requirement upon Waterberg JV Co. In certain circumstances, Mnombo may be diluted with equity transferred or issued to different black empowerment shareholders.

Implats has been granted a call option exercisable in certain circumstances to purchase and earn into a 50.01% interest in Waterberg JV Co. For more detail about the Implats Transaction see “Item 4.A. – Recent Developments – November 2017 – Implats Transaction”

Material Mineral Property Interests

Waterberg Project

The Waterberg Project is located 85 km north of the town of Mokopane (formerly Potgietersrus) in the province of Limpopo, South Africa, approximately 330 km NW from Johannesburg. The property covers 99,244.79 hectares and is approximately centred on UTM coordinate (Latitude 23°21′53” S, Longitude 28°48′ 23” E)”. Elevation ranges from approximately 880 to 1365 meters above sea level.

Waterberg JV Co. holds active prospecting rights covering an area of 92,672.15 hectares. An application for a mining right covering an area of 20,482.42 hectares was filed with the DMR Polokwane Regional Office and was accepted on September 14, 2018 for consideration. The mining right application area consists of farms of active prospecting rights and farms of prospecting rights which expired after the mining right application was filed. The rights of the holder to minerals from both active and expired prospecting rights remain in place when covered by a valid mining right application or granted mining right. The total project area, including active prospecting rights and the mining right application, covers a total of 99,244.79 hectares.

83

Prospecting rights are valid for a period of five years, with one renewal of up to three years. Furthermore, the MPRDA provides for a retention period after prospecting of up to three years with one renewal of up to two years, subject to certain conditions. The holder of a prospecting right granted under the MPRDA has the exclusive right to apply for and, subject to compliance with the requirements of the MPRDA, to be granted, a mining right in respect of the prospecting area in question. On October 10, 2018 the Company announced that mining right application for the Waterberg Project recently filed by Waterberg JV Co. had been accepted by the DMR for consideration.

On September 21, 2017, the Company completed the planned corporatization of the Waterberg Project by the transfer of all Waterberg Project prospecting rights held by PTM RSA on behalf of the joint venture participants into Waterberg JV Co.

Effective September 21, 2017 Waterberg JV Co. owned 100% of the prospecting rights comprising the entire Waterberg Project area and Waterberg JV Co. was owned 45.65% by PTM RSA, 28.35% by JOGMEC and 26% by Mnombo, giving the Company total direct and indirect ownership of 58.62% at that time.

On October 16, 2017 Implats entered into definitive agreements with the Company, JOGMEC, Mnombo and Waterberg JV Co., whereby Implats purchased shares of Waterberg JV Co. representing a 15.0% interest in the Waterberg Project from PTM RSA (8.6%) and JOGMEC (6.4%) for $30.0 million, giving the Company total direct and indirect ownership of 50.02% .

The Waterberg Project is located on a newly-discovered extension of the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex. Anglo American Platinum Limited’s (“ Amplats ”) Mogalakwena mine is a Platreef asset also located on the Northern Limb. The detailed scope of work for the DFS has been agreed. The DFS will investigate two options - a 600,000 tonne per month mine (744,000 ounces PGEs per year), and a second lower capital option at 250,000 to 350,000 tonnes per month. The selection of the DFS team has also been agreed and tenders for engineering groups have been completed and Stantec and DRA have been selected as the lead independent project engineers. A substantial portion of the Waterberg Project prospecting area remains unexplored.

The Waterberg Project is derived from a group of exploration projects that came from a regional target initiative by the Company conceived in 2007 and 2008. The projects target a previously unknown extension to the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex in South Africa. The Company selected this target from a list of new ideas provided by a team of South African geoscientists. Detailed geophysical and other work indicated potential for a package of Bushveld Complex rocks under the sedimentary Waterberg formation cover rocks. Previous mineral exploration activities in the area were limited due to the extensive sedimentary cover. Exploration by the Company therefore progressed through preliminary exploration activities to delineate initial drill targets to primarily drilling focused work now that a deposit has been discovered.

The Waterberg Project is managed and explored according to a joint technical committee and is currently planned for development according to the objective of achieving a “best outcome” scenario for shareholders and stakeholders.

Technical Report – Waterberg

Technical information in this Annual Report regarding the Waterberg Project is derived from the October 2018 Waterberg Report. In addition to the October 2018 Waterberg Report, a SAMREC 2016 compliant Mineral Resource statement has been prepared and signed-off by the Independent Geological Qualified Person. The Independent Geological Qualified Person for the October 2018 Waterberg Report and the companion SAMREC Mineral Resource statement is Mr. Charles J Muller, (B.Sc. (Hons) Geology) Pr. Sci. Nat. (Reg. No. 400201/04), CJM Consulting (Pty) Ltd. The following summary is qualified in its entirety with reference to the full text of the October 2018 Waterberg Report, which is incorporated by reference herein. The use of “$” in the October 2018 Waterberg Report denotes USD.

84

The October 2018 Waterberg Report supersedes the Company’s prior technical report and pre-feasibility study with respect to the Waterberg Project. Prior technical reports and studies relating to the Waterberg Project should no longer be relied upon.

The October 2018 Waterberg Report has been evaluated and prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 to comply with the requirements for a mineral resource estimate. The October 2018 Waterberg Report complies with disclosure and reporting requirements set forth in the TSX Manual, NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, Companion Policy 43-101CP to NI 43-101, and Form 43-101F1 of NI 43-101. The October 2018 Waterberg Report includes measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources. Only measured and indicated resources will be incorporated into the mine plan and financial model for the DFS now in process. The reader is cautioned that all estimates of mineral resources have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and the Company has not disclosed or determined any mineral reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7 standards.

Waterberg Project Summary

(Excerpted from the October 2018 Waterberg Report)

Introduction

CJM Consulting (South Africa) Pty Limited (CJM) was requested by Waterberg JV Resources (Pty) Ltd. (Waterberg JV Resources), on behalf of Platinum Group Metals Ltd (PTML), the issuer, to complete an Independent Technical Report on the update for the Mineral Resources Waterberg Project. The project covers a buried portion of the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex where a deposit containing Platinum Group Metals (PGMs), gold and base metals (Cu, Ni) was discovered through drilling. The objective of this report is to provide an update to the Mineral Resources on the Waterberg project, in accordance with disclosure and reporting requirements set forth in the Toronto Stock Exchange Manual, National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101), Companion Policy 43-101CP to NI 43-101, and Form 43-101F1 of NI 43-101 as well as the South African Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (The SAMREC Code), 2016 edition.

Project Area and Location

The Waterberg Project is located some 85 km north of the town of Mokopane (formerly Potgietersrus), within Limpopo Province, South Africa and covers an area along the strike length of the previously unknown northward extension of the Bushveld Complex. The Project can be accessed via dirt roads exiting off sealed highway N11.

85

Waterberg Project

The Waterberg Project is comprised of several prospecting rights and a pending mining right application covering an area of 99,244.79 ha. The Project is owned by a consortium consisting of Platinum Group Metals Ltd., Mnombo Wethu Consultants (Pty) Ltd. (Mnombo), Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC) and Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. (Implats). The area of the prospecting rights extends some 39 km from north to south and 36 km from east to west. A Mining Right Application was filed over the mineral resource area and this application was accepted on September 14, 2017 for consideration by the Department of Mineral Resources. The process of consultation for the Mining Right and Environmental Assessment has commenced.

The Project Area is an extension of the trend at the northern tip of the Bushveld Complex and the discovery is the result of some detailed geophysical, geochemical and geological work that indicated potential for a package of Bushveld Complex rocks under the Waterberg Group sedimentary cover rocks.

Geological Setting, Deposit Type And Mineralisation

The Bushveld and Molopo Complexes in the Kaapvaal Craton are two of the most well-known mafic/ultramafic layered intrusions in the world. The Bushveld Complex was intruded about 2,060 million years ago into rocks of the Transvaal Supergroup, largely along an unconformity between the Magaliesberg quartzite of the Pretoria Group and the overlying Rooiberg felsites. It is estimated to exceed 66,000 km2 in extent, of which about 55% is covered by younger formations. The Bushveld Complex hosts several layers rich in Platinum Group Metals (PGM), chromium and vanadium, and constitutes the world's largest known Mineral Resources of these metals.

The Waterberg Project is situated off the northern end of the previously known Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex, where the mafic rocks have a different sequence to those of the Eastern and Western Limbs of the Bushveld Complex.

PGM mineralisation within the Bushveld package underlying the Waterberg Project is hosted in two main layers: T Zone and F Zone.

The T Zone occurs within the Main Zone just beneath the contact of the overlaying Upper Zone. Although the T Zone consists of numerous mineralised layers, three potential economical layers were identified, TZ, T1 and T0 - Layers. They are composed mainly of anorthosite, pegmatoidal gabbros, pyroxenite, troctolite, harzburgite, gabbronorite and norite.

The F Zone is hosted in a cyclic unit of olivine rich lithologies towards the base of the Main Zone towards the bottom of the Bushveld Complex. This zone consists of alternating units of harzburgite, troctolite and pyroxenites. The F Zone was divided into the FH (harzburgite) and FP (pyroxenite) layers. The FH layer has significantly higher volumes of olivine in contrast with the lower lying FP layer, which is predominately pyroxenite.

Project Geology

The Waterberg Project is located along the strike extension of the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex. The geology consists predominantly of the Bushveld Main Zone gabbros, gabbronorites, norites, pyroxenites and anorthositic rock types with more mafic rock material such as harzburgite and troctolites that partially grade into dunites towards the base of the package. In the southern part of the project area, Bushveld Upper Zone lithologies such as magnetite gabbros and gabbronorites do occur as intersected in drillhole WB001 and WB002. The Lower Magnetite Layer of the Upper Zone was intersected on the south of the project property (Disseldorp 369 LR) where drillhole WB001 was drilled and intersected a 2.5 m thick magnetite band.

86

On the property, the Bushveld package strikes south-west to north-east with a general dip of 34º - 38º towards the west is observed from drillhole core for the layered units intersected on Waterberg property within the Bushveld Package. However, some structural blocks may be tilted at different angles depending on structural and /or tectonic controls.

The Bushveld Upper Zone is overlain by a 120 m to 760 m thick Waterberg Group which is a sedimentary package predominantly made up of sandstones, and within the project area the two sedimentary formations known as the Setlaole and Makgabeng Formations constitute the Waterberg Group. The Waterberg package is flat lying with dip angles ranging from to 2º to 5º.

Exploration Status

The Waterberg Project is at an advanced project that has undergone preliminary economic evaluations, and a Pre-Feasibility Study, which have warranted further work. Drilling to date has given the confidence to classify Mineral Resources as Inferred, Indicated and Measured. A Definitive Feasibility Study is in progress at the time of this report.

Sample Preparation

The sampling methodology concurs with Waterberg JV Resources’ protocol based on industry best practice. The quality of the sampling is monitored and supervised by a qualified geologist. The sampling is done in a manner that includes the entire potentially economic unit, with enough shoulder sampling to ensure the entire economic zones are assayed.

Analysis

For the present database, field samples were analysed by two different laboratories: the primary laboratory is currently Set Point laboratories (South Africa). Genalysis (Australia) is used for referee test work to confirm the accuracy of the primary laboratory.

Samples are received, sorted, verified and checked for moisture and dried if necessary. Each sample is weighed, and the results are recorded. Rocks, rock chips or lumps are crushed using a jaw crusher to less than 10 mm. The samples are then milled for 5 minutes to achieve a fineness of 90% less than 106 μm, which is the minimum requirement to ensure the best accuracy and precision during analysis.

Samples are analysed for Pt (ppm), Pd (ppm) Rh (ppm) and Au (ppm) by standard 25 g lead fire-assay using a silver collector. Rh (ppm) is assayed using the same method but with a palladium collector and only for selected samples. After pre-concentration by fire assay the resulting solutions are analysed using ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma–Optical Emission Spectrometry).

The base metals (copper, nickel, cobalt and chromium) are analysed using ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometry) after a multi-acid digestion. This technique results in “almost” total digestion.

The drilling, sampling and analytical aspects of the project are considered to have been undertaken to industry standards. The data is considered to be reliable and suitable for Mineral Resource estimation.

87

Drilling

The data from which the structure of the mineralised horizons was modelled, and grade values estimated were derived from a total of 359 932 meters of diamond drilling. This report updates the Mineral Resource estimate using this dataset. The drillhole dataset consists of 437 drillholes and 585 deflections, at the date of drill data cut-off (July 18, 2018).

The management of the drilling programmes, logging and sampling were undertaken from three facilities: one at the town of Marken in Limpopo Province, South Africa and the other on the farm Goedetrouw 366LR within the prospecting right area or at an exploration camp on the adjacent farm Harriet’s Wish.

Drilled core is cleaned, de-greased and packed into metal core boxes by the drilling company. The core is collected from the drilling site daily by Waterberg JV Resources personnel and transported to the coreyard. Before the core is taken off the drilling site, core recovery and the depths are checked. Core logging is done by hand on a pro-forma sheet by qualified geologists under supervision of the Project Geologist.

Quality Control And Quality Assurance

Waterberg JV Resources have instituted a complete QA/QC programme including the insertion of blanks and certified reference materials as well as referee analyses. The programme is being followed and is to industry standard. The data is as a result, considered reliable in the opinion of the Qualified Person.

Mineral Resources

This report documents the Mineral Resource estimate - Effective Date: September 27, 2018. Infill drilling over portions of the project area and new estimation methodology has made it possible to estimate a new Mineral Resource estimate and upgrade portions of the Mineral Resource to the Measured category. All the joint venture partners have been involved in the development of the latest Mineral Resource model, appropriate cut-off grades, economic parameters and Mineral Resource model criteria. It has been determined in relation to basic working costs and in consideration of the overall resource envelope for the deposit, that at a 2.0 g/t cut-off grade the deposit has a reasonable prospect of economic extraction. The Mineral Resource Statement is summarised in Table 1. Notwithstanding the above, for purposes of the DFS, sensitivity analysis and comparison to the 2016 PFS, which utilized a 2.5 g/t 4E cut-off grade, a Mineral Resource estimate at a 2.5 g/t cut-off grade is the preferred scenario (Table 2).

88

90

Notes :

91

The data that formed the basis of the estimate are the drillholes drilled by Waterberg JV Resources which consist of geological logs, the drillhole collars, the downhole surveys and the assay data, all of which were validated by the QP. The area where each layer was present was delineated after examination of the intersections in the various drillholes.

There is no guarantee that all or any part of the Mineral Resource will be converted to a Mineral Reserve. The Prefeasibility study indicated a conversion rate of less than 50%.

Interpretation and Conclusions

Exploration drilling by Waterberg JV Resources has intersected layered magmatic PGM mineralisation in what is interpreted to be the northern extension of the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex under the Waterberg Group rocks. This has confirmed the existence of mineralised zones with potentially economic concentrations of PGM•s. Improved understanding of the geology allowed an improved Mineral Resource.

Additional infill drilling in the Indicated Mineral Resource category areas, resulted in portions of the Mineral Resources being upgraded to the Measured Mineral Resource category.

The Estimation was undertaken using best practices in terms of geostatistics.

The objectives in terms of adherence to the Scope of this Study were met in that an updated Mineral Resource model was produced. An objective of converting Indicated mineral resources from the previous estimates to the higher confidence of Measured was also completed. Cut-offs using previous estimates of costs and recoveries from the 2016 PFS were utilized for this resource estimate with updated price decks.

The delineation of the F Zone and T Zone units was advanced due to better understanding of the geology. The T Zone was divided into three distinct layers, TZ, T1 and T0.

The database used for this estimate consisted of 437 drillholes and 585 deflections. The mineralisation is considered open down-dip and along strike to the north.

The Waterberg Project represents one of the largest discoveries of PGE mineralisation in recent history. Metallurgical work completed to date at Mintek along with previously published Pre-Feasibility Study adds to the confidence in this discovery.

The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are at an appropriate level of confidence to be considered in the ongoing Definitive Feasibility Study for mine planning.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Mineral Resources Reported be considered in the ongoing Definitive Feasibility Study, (“DFS”) for the Waterberg Project. The Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources are of a confidence interval appropriate for mine planning and consideration in the DFS. Further work drilling work could be capable of converting the Inferred Mineral Resources to a higher category but at this time it is likely that future drilling may be focused on other areas and items like geotechnical characteristics for mine planning or detailed metallurgical work. A budget for the DFS is in progress so no specific budget is recommended here. Based on the Mineral Resource estimate here it is recommended that the DFS and ongoing Mining Right Application work continue.

92

* * * * * *

Additional Information

During the year ended August 31, 2018, approximately $9.1 million was spent at the Waterberg Project for engineering and exploration activities. At August 31, 2018 the Company had capitalized $29.4 million in accumulated net costs to the Waterberg Project. Total expenditures on the property since inception, and before cost reimbursements by other Waterberg Project Partners, are approximately $62 million.

The DFS is now being advanced under the direction of the Technical Committee appointed by Waterberg JV Co., which is comprised of members representing the Company and all other Waterberg Project Partners – Implats, JOGMEC and Mnombo.

Previously, an updated mineral resource estimate was completed by the Company for the Waterberg Project in October 2016 as a component NI 43-101 technical report to a pre-feasibility study. Since the October 2016 mineral resource estimate was completed, the joint venture, at the direction of its Technical Committee, completed a further 61,394 meters of drilling in 143 new drill holes targeting the T and the F Zones. An additional 125 deflections from the mother holes were also drilled. A total of approximately 26,000 new assay samples were completed along with 5,000 reference samples and quality control blanks.

The true width of the shallow dipping (30° to 35) mineralized zones at the Waterberg Project are approximately 82% to 87% of the reported interval from the vertical intercepts drilled. For the efficient application of bulk mining methods and for mine planning, vertical intercepts of 3 meters or more are desirable. Increased grade thickness zones associated with minor footwall troughs or bays along the 13 km long layered complex have recently been identified.

As a result of its shallow depth, good grade and a fully mechanized mining approach, the Waterberg Project has the opportunity to be a safe mine within the lowest quartile of the Southern Africa PGE industry cost curve.

Waterberg JV Co. has applied for a mining right and detailed consultation with communities, local municipalities, the Limpopo Provincial government and South African national authorities is ongoing. The application for a mining right has been accepted by the DMR for consideration. Consultation with stakeholders has been in a positive climate of mutual respect.

Important detailed infrastructure planning has commenced for the Waterberg Project. Detailed hydrological work is now underway to study the possible utilization of known sources for significant volumes of ground water. A recent co-operation agreement between Waterberg JV Co. and the local Capricorn Municipality for the development of water resources to the benefit of local communities and the mine is resulting in good advancement towards the identification of water supplies and the design of distribution infrastructure. Hydrological work so far has also identified several large-scale water basins that are likely able to provide mine process and potable water for the Waterberg Project and local communities. Test drilling of these water basins has commenced. An earlier, well executed work and drilling program conducted by the Capricorn District Municipality identified both potable and high mineral unpotable water resources in the district. Drilling by Waterberg JV Co. has identified some potable water resources. Several boreholes proximal to the Waterberg Project identified large volumes of high mineral unpotable water not suitable for agriculture. Hydrological and mill process specialists are investigating the use of this water as mine process water. In general, ground water resources identified proximal to the Waterberg Project have potential for usage for both mining and local communities.

93

The establishment of servitudes for power line routes and detailed planning and permitting for an Eskom electrical service to the project are also advancing well. Power line environmental and servitude work is being completed by TDxPower in coordination with Eskom. TDxPower has progressed electrical power connection planning for approximately a 70 km, 137MVA line to the project.

The joint venture partners target the completion of the DFS at the end of March, 2019. Planned DFS engineering work on the Waterberg Project includes resource modelling, metallurgical work, optimization of the metallurgical flow sheet using South African and Japanese expertise, bulk services design and mechanized mine planning. Optimization of the mine plan and working on reducing underground sustaining development capital will be part of the upcoming DFS. DRA Projects SA (Proprietary) Limited was appointed for DFS work on metallurgy, plant design, infrastructure and cost estimation. Stantec Consulting International LLC was appointed for DFS work on underground mining engineering and design and reserve estimation.

Non-Material Mineral Property Interests

The non-material mineral property interests of the Company include prospecting rights located in South Africa and various mineral property interests in Canada. These non-material property interests are not, individually or collectively, material to the Company and are also described in the Company’s Financial Statements and Management•s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended August 31, 2018.