waterberg pea presentation

Waterberg PEAPresentation

14 February, 2014

DisclosureThis presentation has been prepared by Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (“Platinum Group” or the “Company”). Information included in this presentation regardingthe Company’s mineral properties has been compiled by R. Michael Jones, P.Eng, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and a non-independent Qualified Person for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”), based on theindependent technical reports, and Other Information filed by the Company with the Canadian securities regulators and the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission (“SEC”). The authors of the technical reports have reviewed and consented to the use of the material from their reports in the Disclosure Record..

For more detailed information regarding the Company and its mineral properties, you should refer to the Company’s independent technical reports and otherfilings with the Canadian securities regulators and the SEC, which are available at www.sedar.com and www.sec.gov, respectively. Scientific or Technicalinformation contained herein is derived from the Company’s technical reports, including the “Updated Technical Report (Updated Feasibility Study WesternBushveld Joint Venture Project 1 (Elandsfontein and Frischgewaagd)” dated November 20, 2009 with an effective date of October 8, 2009 (the “2009 UFS”)prepared by Gordon I. Cunningham, Charles J. Muller, Timothy V. Spindler and Byron Stewart, which include more detailed information with respect to theCompany’s properties, including the dates of such reports and the estimates included therein, details of quality and grade of each resource, details of the keyassumptions, methods and parameters used in the resource estimates and the 2009 UFS and a general discussion of the extent to which the resourceestimates and the other estimates and projections included in the reports may be materially affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, taxation,socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. Scientific or technical information contained herein related to the Waterberg Project is derived from theCompany’s technical reports including the “Revised and Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Waterberg Platinum Project” dated September 3, 2011prepared by Ken Lomberg which includes more detailed information. The Waterberg Joint Venture PEA is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty of thatthe resources will be converted to a higher category or to be shown to be viable.

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORSAs a Canadian issuer that is eligible to use the U.S./Canada Multijurisdictional Disclosure System (MJDS), the Company is permitted to prepare a prospectusand this presentation in accordance with Canadian securities laws, which differ in certain respects from U.S. securities laws. In particular, this presentationuses the terms “mineral resource”, “measured mineral resource”, “indicated mineral resource” and “inferred mineral resource”. While these terms arerecognized and required by Canadian securities laws, they are not recognized by the SEC. In addition, “reserves” reported by the Company under Canadianstandards may not qualify as reserves under SEC standards. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part of a “measured mineral resource” or an“indicated mineral resource” will ever be converted into a “reserve.” Under U.S. standards, mineralization may not be classified as a “reserve” unless themineralization can be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time the reserve determination is made. “Inferred mineral resources” have a greatamount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of aninferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. U.S. investors are urged to read the statement in the filed prospectus under the heading“Cautionary Note to United States Investors” for further information. Historical results or feasibility models presented herein are not guarantees or expectationsof future performance.

Information included in this presentation, the Company’s independent technical reports and the Company’s other public statements related to its mineralproperties has been prepared in accordance with securities laws in effect in Canada, which differ from U.S. securities laws. The SEC permits U.S. miningcompanies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only those mineral deposits that a company can economically and legally extract or produce. TheCompany uses certain terms in this presentation, such as “resources,” that the SEC’s guidelines strictly prohibit U.S. registered companies from including intheir filings with the SEC. You are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 40-F annual report, which may be secured from us, or from the SEC’swebsite at www.sec.gov.

This presentation also contains information about adjacent properties on which the Company has no right to explore or mine. The Company advises you thatthe SEC’s mining guidelines strictly prohibit information of this type in documents filed with the SEC. Investors are cautioned that mineral deposits on adjacentproperties are not indicative of mineral deposits on the Companies properties

This presentation is not an offer to sell, or a solicitation to buy, any securities in any jurisdiction. The Toronto Stock Exchange and the NYSE.MKT LLC havenot reviewed and do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or adequacy of this presentation, which has been prepared by the Company.

PLG: NYSE MKT PTM: TSX 1

Forward Looking Statements

Certain of the statements made herein, including statements regarding the timing of future activities and achievements by the Company, future anticipatedexploration and development programs of the Company’s WBJV and Waterberg projects, business plans, funding models for the WBJV Project 1 platinummine, statements regarding the project finance loan and other financing, potential required equity contributions and cost overrun accounts, potential miningscenarios and timing of production at the WBJV Project 1 platinum mine, the possibility of qualified empowerment partners investing in the WBJV Project 1Platinum Mine and the outcome of further developments with regard to Wesizwe, business trends and future operating factors, price estimates and anticipatedplatinum supply and deficits are forward-looking and subject to important risk factors and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s ability tocontrol or predict. In addition, resource estimates and feasibility study results constitute forward-looking statements to the extent that they represent,respectively, estimates of mineralization that may be encountered upon additional exploration and estimates of the capital and operating expenses, metals andcurrency prices and other operating conditions that may be encountered in the future. Forward-looking statements in this presentation include, withoutlimitation, the extent and timing of exploration programs and exploration results, the results of the PEA, including the planned construction period,the post-tax NPV and peak funding estimates, the risks and opportunities outlined in the PEA, the potential tonnage, grades and content ofdeposits, timing, establishment and extent of resources estimates, potential production from and viability of the Company’s properties, productionand operating costs and permitting submission and timing.

Forward-Looking Statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual events or results to differ materially from thosediscussed in the Forward-Looking Statements, and even if events or results discussed in the Forward-Looking Statements are realized or substantially realized,there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on, the Company. Factors that could cause actual results or events todiffer materially from current expectations include, among other things: additional financing requirements; the Company’s history of losses and ability tocontinue as a going concern; the fact that most of the Company’s properties contain no known mineral reserves; delays in, or inability to achieve, plannedcommercial production at the Company’s properties; discrepancies between actual and estimated mineral reserves and mineral resources, between actual andestimated development and operating costs, between actual and estimated metallurgical recoveries and between estimated and actual production; fluctuationsin the relative values of the Canadian dollar as compared to the South African Rand and the United States dollar; metal price volatility; a default under theproposed project loan facility, if consummated, including as a result of delays in the start-up of the WBJV Project 1 platinum mine; the ability of the Company toretain its key management employees or procure the services of skilled and experienced personnel; conflicts of interest among the Company’s directors andexecutive officers as a result of their involvement with other mineral resource companies; any disputes or disagreements with the Company’s joint venturepartners or any failure of the Company or such joint venture partners to fund their obligations under applicable joint venture agreements; exploration,development and mining risks and the inherently dangerous nature of the mining industry, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual orunexpected formations, safety stoppages (whether voluntary or regulatory), pressures, mine collapses, cave ins or flooding and the risk of inadequateinsurance or inability to obtain insurance to cover these risks and other risks and uncertainties; property and mineral title risks, including defective title tomineral claims or property; changes in national and local government legislation, taxation, controls, regulations and political or economic developments inCanada, South Africa or other countries in which the Company does or may carry out business in the future; equipment shortages and the ability of theCompany to acquire the necessary access rights and infrastructure for its mineral properties; environmental regulations and the ability of the Company toobtain and maintain necessary permits, including environmental authorizations; competition in the mineral exploration industry; and risks of doing business inSouth Africa, including but not limited to, labour, economic and political instability as well as the factors described or referred to in the section entitled “RiskFactors” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended August 31, which is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com , and is included as part ofthe Company’s Form 40-F annual report filed with the SEC at www.sec.gov and in the Company’s prospectus dated December 21, 2012. You are advised toreview these risk factors, and not to place undue reliance on Forward-Looking Statements.

The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or release any revisions to Forward-Looking Statements to reflect events or circumstances after thedate of this presentation or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events except as required by law.


Project Objective

Conduct a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to study the technical and financial viability of the Waterberg Resource

• Prove a positive business‐case to advance the project• Establish a preliminary estimate of value• Eliminate fatal‐flaws• Identify way‐forward, critical‐path and long lead‐time items

Goals


Investors are cautioned under U.S. and Canadian standards, mineralization may not be classified as a “reserve” unless the mineralization can be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time the reserve determination is made. “Inferredmineral resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. All of the Waterberg Resources are classified as Inferred.

Project Study AnatomyPhase Objective Key Focus Areas Costs

Con

cept

/ PE

A

To identify major options for opportunity realisation

Confirm alignment with the business case

Assess the potential value of the opportunity

Define the work required to assess the opportunity

Establish a plan for the Prefeasibility phase

Is this the right opportunity? Is the opportunity consistent with the overall

business strategy? Does the potential value from the opportunity justify

further investigation? The thoroughness of evaluation of alternative

technology, costing and implementation approaches.

Have areas of opportunity and risk been investigated in later stages to enhance value?

Cap

ital C

ost

+ / -

30%

Pref

easi

bilit

y

The best project size, scope, technical and production solution has been selected and is a viable business concept aligned to business strategy

Demonstration that all the discarded project options have been studied and are clearly inferior and have no probability of re-emerging as viable options

A workable plan for taking the concept through the Feasibility development stage Cap

ital C

ost

+ 25

% to

–15

%

Feas

ibili

ty

Develop a Proven Business proposition at the appropriate level of detail and accuracy for implementation funding

Cap

ital C

ost

+ 15

% to

–5%


PEA Summary

• Deposits well‐suited to high‐volume, mechanised‐mining • Relatively shallow and accessible via ramps and declines• The large resource and the three access points provide a quick build‐up and a long‐life project

supporting 600kt per month of production, 655,000 ounces Platinum, Palladium and Gold/yrSteady State

• The deposit can be exploited at a good margin over at least a 20 year life, indicating a positive business case based on the PEA assumptions

• Optimisation opportunities exist from a project phasing perspective and a mining and access methodology perspective

• Additional deposits can be included in subsequent phases to extend mine life and/or expand production volumes

Key Findings


Justifies progression to prefeasibility study

Location Map


Waterberg - Schematic Cross-SectionTonnage

Pt (g/t)Pd

(g/t)Au (g/t) 2PGE+Au (g/t) Pt:Pd:Au 2PGE+Au (koz)

Mt

166.7 0.98 1.97 0.32 3.26 30:60:10 17,523


Cross Section T- Layer


1000m132m

F Zone

T Zone

Cross Section F


T Zone

1000m

241m

10

Resource Mining Processing Infrastructure Financials

1

• Acquire Geological Block Model • Desktop validation of borehole data, assay data, rock density Validation of model

preparation, wireframes• Validation of Mineral resource estimate, cut off grade, geo statistics and mineralogy• Review of Geo-Hydrology• Validation current Geological Data and Model

Scope of study and expected deliverables

11

• Assessment of Geotechnical Parameters • Review of strat column on selected boreholes • Identify depth of weathering • Review of deposit, hanging wall and footwall, Validation Summary Report of Geotechnical Parameters• Identify epicentre for surface infrastructure and initial access point• Establish production requirement in line with Company Strategic Plan • Understand deposit architecture• Identification of alternative mining methods and selection of preferred option for scoping study• Establish optimum access option to deposit• Establish Mine Design Criteria• Rock Engineering Design for preferred mining method• Conceptual Ventilation Design for preferred Mining Design Option • Develop Mine design and production schedule in “Mine 24D”• Contops Shift Roster• Shifts 2 x 10 hour shifts• 365 days per year less 13 Public Holidays• 352 days and 704 shifts per year


2


12


3


• Using limited test work available and using past experience of similar designs, • select a modular concentrator plant to match the mining throughput• Assign metallurgical recoveries• Compile an operating and capital cost estimates

Recoveries and Treatment Terms

2E&Au recovery T 88.3%2E&Au recovery F 82.9%Cu recovery T 86.6%Cu recovery F 74.1%Ni recovery T 82.9%Ni recovery F 59.2%Tolling terms 2E&Au 85.0%Tolling terms Cu 67.5%

Tolling terms Ni 72.5%

13


4


• Identify mine access• Determine Battery Limit for Scope of Study i.e. from ROM stockpile, waste rock handling

and tailings disposal• Surface and underground layouts and logistics • Recruitment, training and housing options • Confirm availability and sources for main utilities, electrical power, and water • Permitting i.e. MRA and EIA/EMP • Provide roadmap for future options-, trade-off studies, value engineering and processes• Determine sources for benchmarking• Roadmap Execution Plan for SLP

14

Resource Mining Processing Infrastructure Implementation and Financials

5


• Risk Assessment of Implementation Plan• Establish Work Breakdown Structure • Establish Company Rules with regards to definition of Capital and Operating Cost battery

limits • Develop “Class 0” Cost estimate for all related Mining and Engineering Infrastructure

(Integrated cost and schedule) • Develop "Class 0" Implementation schedule for all related Mining and Engineering

Infrastructure• Establish Labour Profiles for chosen Mining Plan• Collate appropriate benchmark parameters • Develop operating cost model for preferred mining method• Develop utility cost model• Develop Financial Valuation Model. (DCF, NPV, IRR)

PEA Assumptions

15PLG: NYSE MKT PTM: TSX

• Equipment selection for mining methods; Step Room & Pillar and Sub‐level Open Stoping

• Used preliminary metallurgical recoveries from the SGS test work • Recent plant designs treating 260ktpm to 300ktpm used for costing purposes and factorised to

accommodate the 600ktpm required for Waterberg• A 600ktpm plant was constructed for PPRUST around 2008. Footprint of this plant used as a guide

for plant and for surface layouts• No alternative processing options exist ‐ a complete processing facility would have to be

constructed for 600ktpm capacity

• Rhodium has been excluded from the contribution in the Financial Valuation

• Concentrate would be transported by road to the Polokwane smelter or an alternative location• A tailings and waste dumps would be constructed to accommodate the waste mining product and

concentrator tailings

• All figures in 2014 money terms, no escalation added• Optimisation was estimated to offset commercial scale discounts in recovery at this level of study• Corporate Tax of 28% has been applied• Royalties Min=0.5% and Max=7% on gross sales• Labour Plans for mining & engineering, P75 labour rates used• Diesel price R13.50/litre• Electricity R0.82c/Kwh• Support and Stores rates used for bulk service mining

Resource

Mining

Processing

Infrastructure

Financials

• PTM completed the process of consultation as part of the prospecting permit process in accordance with the requirements of the MPRDA

• This process also forms part of the prospecting Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which has been approved by the Regulator DMR

The Process of Community Consultation by PTM

Public Involvement


• During community consultations, have demonstrated the process of exploration so that the people can fully understand the exploration processes.

Public Involvement (cont’d)

• Community forums have been established• PTM has been well received throughout the region• Meet regularly to discuss issues pertaining to the ongoing prospecting programme

• Have assisted the various communities with water supply by drilling water boreholes

• Have employed unskilled labourers from the communities


Inferred Resources – Sept 2013

Waterberg Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

Inferred 2PGE+Au Resource Estimate, September 2, 2013

LayerThickness

(avg m)

Tonnage

Mt

Pt

(g/t)

Pd

(g/t)

Au

(g/t)

2PGE+Au

(g/t)Pt:Pd:Au

2PGE+Au

(koz)

Cu

(%)

Ni

(%)Cu (t) Ni (t)

T1 2.30 8.50 1.04 1.55 0.47 3.06 34:51:15 842 0.17 0.10 14,500 8,400

T2 3.77 39.16 1.16 2.04 0.84 4.04 29:50:21 5,107 0.18 0.10 69,400 37,600

T Total 3.38 47.66 1.14 1.95 0.77 3.86 30:50:20 5,948 0.18 0.10 83,900 46,000

F Total 3.0 to 30.0 119.05 0.91 1.98 0.13 3.02 30:65:5 11,575 0.07 0.17 78,800 202,200

Total 166.71 0.98 1.97 0.32 3.26 30:60:10 17,523 0.10 0.15 162,700 248,200

Note:

The T1 and F layers are reported with a 2g/t 2PGE+Au cut-off

The T2 layer is reported based on the selection of a mining cut of a minimum of 2m consistently across all deflections


Update Inferred Mineral Resource, Dated September 3, 2013, Ken Lomberg, Coffey Mining, Independent Qualified Person – www.sedar.com.

Mining Methods


• Aspects that influence the mining method decision:‐ Examine methods suitable for massive and moderately thick deposits‐ The deposits have a relatively difficult dip of 38○‐ Mining methods must address all associated safety issues, and‐ Be able to deliver high volumes

Mining Methods (cont’d)


• The following criteria were used to establish a scoring system in the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP):‐ Shortest time to production‐ Quickest return on investment (ROI)‐ High volumes‐ Flexibility‐ Selectivity‐ Safety‐ Cater for the dip and thickness

Mining Methods (cont’d)


• Initially 13 mining methods were considered: Sub‐level cave (massive) – (unacceptable surface subsistence) Open pit (massive) – (massive material removal) Drift and fill (massive) – (cost, limited production output) Reef boring (moderate thickness) – (not suitable for high tonnages) Contour drift and fill (moderate thickness) – (cost/availability of fill) Longitudinal room and pillar (moderate thickness) – (extensive pre‐

development required, limited selectivity) Block cave (massive) Cut and fill (massive) Trough mining (moderate thickness). Long hole stoping (moderate thickness) Step room and pillar (moderate thickness) Super F Zone ‐ Sub‐level open stoping (massive) T & F Zones ‐ Room and pillar (moderate thickness) – adapted to “modified

step room and pillar

‐ Excluded ‐ Considered ‐ Selected

AHP Results – Moderate T and F Zones


MSR LH TM

The mining methods were evaluated against the following criteria:

Shortest time to production Quickest return on investment (ROI) High volumes Flexibility Selectivity Safety Allow for the dip and thickness

Modest Zones Overall Mining Method Rating Criteria

Score

Hi

Lo

• Methods considered:• Modified Step Room & Pillar (MSR)• Longhole Room & Pillar Tabular Stoping (LH)• Trough Mining ™

• Modified Step Room and Pillar Mining best for moderate T and F deposits

AHP Results – Super F Zone

• Methods considered:• Sub‐Level Open Stoping (SLS)• Cut and Fill (CF)• Block Caving (BC)

• Sub‐Level Open Stoping (SLS) best for Super F zone deposits


Score

Hi

Lo

The mining methods were evaluated against the following criteria:

Shortest time to production Quickest return on investment (ROI) High volumes Flexibility Selectivity Safety Allow for the dip and thickness

SLS CF BC

Super F Overall Mining Method Rating Criteria

Unlocking The Potential


Step Room & Pillar Sub‐level Open Stoping

T zone and F zone30‐40 degree dip3‐10m thick

Super F zone30‐40 degree dip>10m thick

Block cave (massive)Sub‐level cave (massive)Open pit (massive)Sub‐level open stoping (massive)Cut and fill (massive)Drift and fill (massive)

Room and pillar Trough mining Reef boring Long hole stoping Contour drift and fillStep room and pillarLongitudinal room and pillar

Mine Design Criteria – Mechanised Mining

25

Development Advance Rates :• Decline – 110m per month per decline

(system advance)• Flat development – 200m/month/crew• Raise boring – 55m/month including pilot

drilling

Modified Step Room and Pillar (MSRP)• On Reef Decline dimension 5 x 5m at an

apparent dip of 8⁰• Drives 5 x 5m as per MDC• Pillar size 5 x 5m• Distance between pillars 10m• Extraction ratio – 83%

Sub‐level Open stoping (SLOS)• Rib Pillars – 5m wide• Rib pillar spacing 15m skin to skin• Vertical distance between drill drives – 20m

footwall to footwall• Crown pillar – 20m • Ring spacing – 2m• Drill drives per stope 5 – Consisting of crown

pillar level, production drive 1, production drive 2, production drive 3, production drive 4

• Tons per ring 1348t• Production drill metres/ton blasted – 0.8m/6• Production drill metres/machine/day – 280m/day• Rib Pillar in‐stope – 30m• Rib Pillar between stope – 30m• Extraction ratio – 79%

PLG: NYSE MKT PTM: TSX

Longitudinal Section


Shallow T Super F North F

225m

1413m

224m 372m Portal from Surface

Note: Vertical Red and blue lines are vent holes

Portal from Surface

Decline and Access Schematic

Blue-print Design – T Zone


Up, and down‐cast vent holes

Decline Cluster

Step, room& pillar

Surface portal

Blue-print Design – Super F Zone


Decline ClusterUp, and down‐cast vent holes

Production ramps and stopes

Surface portal

Combined Tonnage Profile

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,0002014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

2036

T Zone North F Super F


Tonn

es

Bulk Services – Electrical Supply

30

• Discussions have been initiated with Electrical Power Supplier (Eskom)• Upgrades and conversions to existing networks are planned to be in place by

2018• Milestone is considered a high risk to the Project, as there is no alternative

supply besides self‐supply (Power Generation)• A dedicated HV power line will be installed from the Knobel Substation to the

Mine Site• The overhead line will feed into the 100MVA incomer substation provided for

the Project.• From this point power will be distributed to satellite substations, primarily the

Concentrator and the 3 decline systems• Provision has been made for the approximate 28km overhead line in the

Project Cost

Detailed work to be done in next phase

Bulk Services – Water

31

• Indication that there is little ground water available on site to be used for mining and processing plant

• The expected Project consumption of 30 Ml per day will be supplied from the planned water supply upgrade Project in the area West of Polokwane

• The formal water supply expansion plan terminates short of the project site and a dedicated supply line approximately 19km in length will be provided for the Mine Supply

• A provision has been allowed in the Project Estimate for the installation of a water supply line

• The planned supply network may not have the capacity to supply the Mine requirement and additional costs may be incurred to increase the supply capacity of the planned network

Further discussions with relevant authorities needed to further understand risk issue

Bulk Services – Access Roads

32

• The current drilling area is some 38km to 45km from the N11 National Road

• The route to the Waterberg drill sites are via rural roads from the N11

• New haul roads and access roads will have to be constructed

Process slide

33

2 x 300ktpm processing plants planned. 1st to be commissioned in 2018, 2nd end 2019

Assumptions

34

Pricing Assumptions


Current/Spot 3 Year Trailing Average

Platinum (US$ / oz) 1,380.00 1,586.06Palladium (US$ / oz) 708.00 701.04Gold (US$ / oz) 1,259.00 1,548.84Copper (US$ / lb) 3.25 3.58Nickel (US$ / lb) 6.51 8.35R/US$ 11.13 10.00

Basket Price Current Spot 3 Year Trailing Average

T Zone $/oz 1,014.40 1,129.60R/oz 11,290.25 11,296.00

F zone $/oz 934.83 1,005.23R/oz 10,404.62 10,052.33

Super F Zone $/oz 934.68 1,005.03R/oz 10,402.99 10,050.34

Total $/oz 961.57 1,047.04R/oz 10,702.24 10,470.41


Platinum

Palladium

Gold

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

oz/ann

um

LOM(1) Ounce Profile

Key Metrics – Ounce Profile

Steady State Production (655 000 oz)

Recovered Ounces Steady State OuncesTotal Concentrate 11 409 412 655 000Platinum 3 381 234 194 000Palladium 6 901 055 397 000Gold 1 127 123 64 000

Note: (1) – LOM can be extended, at depth and along strike


Direct Cost (R/t) 363

Processing Cost (R/t) 112

Transport (R/t) 26

Operating Cost (R/t) 501

Operating Cost ($/oz) 555

Production Cost ($/oz) 626

Key Metrics – Operating Costs

Labour, R 89.91, 25%

Explosives, R5.91, 2%

Support, R25.61, 7%

Stores, R38.54, 11%

Diesel, R 47.58, 13%Maintenance, R

59.76, 16%

Tyres, R 13.25, 4%

Services, R31.81, 9%

Power, R49.39, 13% Water, R0.75, 0%

Direct Costs (R’m), excl. Processing ‐ R362.51/t

Key Operating Costs


Peak Funding (R’bn) 8,853

Peak Funding (US$M) 885

Key Metrics – Capital Costs

% Capex to Full Production

Mining Development,

17% Development Equipment, 8%

Drilling, 1%

Engineering Infrastructure,

10%

Surface Infrastructure,

35%

Project Management, 3%

Financial Costs, 12%

Contingencies, 13%

Capital Requirements per Summary Work Package

AreaCapital to Full Production

(R'm)

Sustaining Capital(R'm)

Total(R'm)

MIning Services 24R ‐R 24R Mining Development 2,014R 3,004R 5,018R Development Equipment 965R 45R 1,010R Drilling 135R 22R 157R Engineering Infrastructure 1,221R 569R 1,790R Surface Infrastructure 4,155R ‐R 4,155R Project Management 305R 543R 848R Financial Costs 1,418R 1,057R 2,475R Contingencies 1,536R 811R 2,347R Total Excluding Escalation 11,774R 6,051R 17,824R

Peak Funding

(4,000)

(2,000)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

(10,000)

(5,000)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Cashflo

w (R

'm)

Cumulative Ca

shflo

w (R

’m)

Cashflow Revenue Cumm Cashflow

38

Cash Flow

First production 2018

Cumulative cashflow R20.9bn

Peak funding R8.8bnProject

construction starts Jan 2016

Key Metrics – Cashflow

Undiscounted NPV (R’m) 20,851 NPV @ 7.5% (R’m) Pre‐taxNPV @ 7.5% (R’m) Post‐tax

8,047 5,088

IRR Pre‐taxIRR Post‐tax

16.4%14.0%

Payback 2024


Financial Return

39

Prefeasibility Study

Project Construction and Ramp‐up

Feasibility Study 2015

Remainder of 2014

Jan 2016‐2020

PEA

Deliverables• Proven Business

Case• No fatal‐flaws• Forward work‐

plan

Project is moving into Prefeasibility phase with a positive PEA outcome

Action Steps• Additional exploration drilling• Geological modelling• Metallurgical test work• EIA / EMP / Permitting• Improve business case• Perform option trade‐offsDeliverables• Single Option selected• Ratified and optimised business‐

case

Complete

Action Steps• Improve confidence in

engineering• Operational readiness study• Prepare for implementationDeliverables• Full detailed‐design and

costing• Implementation plan

Current Phase

Project Phases

End‐2020Full‐

production 600ktpm

2018First production

High-level Project Schedule

Est. Cost ~R100m


File Mining Right

Application

waterberg pea presentation

Investor Relations

nyse mkt ptm

measured mineral

canadian securities

inferred mineral

canadian securities

securities

mineral properties

mineral deposits