Gold Price, page-408

I can understand why the failure of Jaime to progress has left a lingering bad taste. Mainly because of the unrealised potential of those high-grades and partly because of the lack of detail on why the deal for the Jaime project didn't go ahead. I will attempt to provide my research and analysis to provide a perspective (which is only my opinion based on what I have read). Hate to sit back and watch you all still burn inside because of Jaime! I'm only a shareholder (I have no connection to anybody at OZM) and all the info I look at is from publicly accessible websites. I've gone back and read the 15 September 2023 market release. I've extracted the key bits below:

• "The mineral rights cover a 240ha area situated within tenement 833042/2013" (page 2)

• "The Vendor is the owner of 240ha of freehold land (Property) and holder of the mineral rights under Mining Concession 833042/2013 (Mineral Rights) that fall within the boundaries of the Property." (page 10)

• "Upon payment of the Consideration, the Vendor is to make application to the Agencia Nacional De Mineracao to have the Mineral Rights excised from Mining Concession 833042/2013 and a new tenement/s granted (New Tenement). The unencumbered title to the New Tenement/s will then be transferred to the Purchaser pursuant to the terms of the Mineral Rights Agreement." (p11)

To me, it appears that Pacheco (the so-called 'Vendor' of Jaime) was only the freehold landholder (presumably of the 240ha of land around Jaime). Although it was stated in the market release that Pacheco also held the mineral rights over the 240ha area situated within tenement 833042/2013, this was not the case according to official records (ANM). At the time, the official tenement holder of 833042/2013 was COOPERATIVA DOS GARIMPEIROS E ESTRATIVISTA DO VALE DO RIO DOCE LTDA - COOPEG. Pacheco was not officially listed as the tenement holder of 833042/2013 nor any part of it. At a later date, a company named P & P MINERIOS LTDA became the title holder to another part of 833042/2013 (not the Jaime part). Currently, the ANM registered holder of tenement 833042/2013 which contains Jaime, remains COOPERATIVA DOS GARIMPEIROS E ESTRATIVISTA DO VALE DO RIO DOCE LTDA - COOPEG.

So, what happened? Well, your guess is as good as mine because we have not been told the full facts and circumstances therefore, we are left to speculate! Did Pacheco have an agreement in place with COOPEG to carve out Jaime (the 240ha of mineral rights) from tenement 833042/2013? If so, did a dispute about such an agreement become a legacy issue which precluded Pacheco from delivering clear title to Jaime? I think this explanation is plausible mainly because P & P MINERIOS LTDA actually managed to carve out its project from tenement 833042/2013. Although OZM's market release was accurate and not misleading imho, I think many would agree that the market release should have made it abundantly clear that Pacheco was not the official (ANM) registered holder of the claimed mineral rights to Jaime. At the end of the day, this is a lesson for all to independently check/verify info contained in market releases, to better assess risk.