2023 Climate Report

2023 Climate Report

Hydrologic drainage for the Andacollo mine water supply , Elqui River Valley Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices Table of Contents Leadership letter 3 Introduction 4 About Royal Gold 5 Where we are 7 Current climate 9 Historical climate impacts 11 Governance 12 Board oversight 13 Management’s role 14 Strategy 15 Climate strategy 16 Climate scenario analysis 17 Climate scenario 1: Current policies 19 Climate scenario 2: Delayed transition 20 Climate scenario 3: Net Zero 2050 21 Water risk 23 Future water risk 24 Physical risk summary 25 Transition risk summary 26 Financial risk 28 Climate change risk summary 31 Climate-related opportunities 32 Organizational resilience to climate change impacts 33 Risk Management 36 Identifying and assessing risks 37 Risk assessment timeframes 39 Risk drivers 40 Metrics and Targets 42 Tracking our performance 43 Appendices 46 GHG emissions footprint calculation methodology 46 Legal matters 47 2 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 3 Leadership letter We are pleased to present our first Climate Report. Although we have consistently reported on climate-related information since 2020 in our ESG Report, we felt the need to publish a stand-alone report which focuses primarily on climate change and the risks climate change could potentially have on our portfolio of metal streams and royalties. We believe this report will provide our investors and stakeholders with clearer and more expansive reporting against the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) guidelines. We view our climate reporting as a process rather than a deliverable. We expect that our efforts will result in enhanced disclosure over time, meet our internal risk management needs, provide input into our strategic planning, as well as provide our investors with valuable information upon which they can make independent risk assessments. As owners of metal stream and royalty interests, which are passive interests in mine production, we indirectly bear the potential physical and transition risks to which our Operators are exposed without management control over or responsibility for the mines to which our streams and royalties relate. Our assessment of the impacts of climate change on our Operators has been informed by independent and internationally recognized standards and resources. However, it is important for us to emphasize that as passive investors, we do not possess and do not have rights to acquire the granular data needed to project changes in climate parameters and associated operational impacts. Therefore, our assessments are based on regional or jurisdictional trends and incomplete disclosure from the Operators and should be considered assumptive in nature. This report focuses on 11 regions or jurisdictions in our climate scenario analysis which in total, constituted approximately 92% of our Net GEOs in 2022, the most current year for which complete data on our portfolio is available. We will continue to publish our annual corporate and Operators’ climate- related performance in our Investment Stewardship Report (“ISR”) and anticipate that our Climate Report will be updated periodically. Please refer to our ISR to learn more about our other ESG-related risks and opportunities. Thank you for taking the time to review our first Climate Report and, as always, my team and I welcome comments or questions. LEARN MORE Detailed operator performance data is presented on pages 58-69 “ We continue to engage with investors and other stakeholders to discuss climate and climate change risk and impacts along with other ESG factors.” Sincerely, William H. Heissenbuttel President and Chief Executive Officer 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 4 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Introduction Royal Gold believes climate change has the potential to transform the planet, the way we live, and the way we conduct business. We are committed to understanding how the climate has historically impacted the jurisdictions where we have investments and how the physical impacts of climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy might affect our business going forward. These findings provide input into our strategic planning, risk management framework, and investment decision making. OUR APPROACH We make passive investments, the value of which is based on minerals produced from mining operations. We recognize mining activities are inherently energy intensive and acknowledge that our investments may, under certain circumstances in which we are providing finance for the development or expansion of a mining operation, facilitate mining operations that contribute to greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Royal Gold is committed to understanding how both the physical impacts of climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy might affect our business, and how integrating these factors into our strategic planning and business development activities may help reduce the impacts. We are also working to increase our disclosure of climate-relevant information to help our investors and other stakeholders understand our approach and the potential for climate change to impact our business. To do this, we are working to meet the recommendations of the TCFD. We aspire to conduct our business transparently and disclose the potential financial impacts of climate-related change on Royal Gold and its business strategy. In doing so, we aim to ensure that investors and other stakeholders are well-informed about how Royal Gold is positioning itself in relation to climate-related risks and opportunities. This report is organized according to the TCFD framework elements: Governance, Strategy, Risk Assessment and Metrics and Targets, which further address the eleven TCFD recommended disclosures. Also, detailed in this report are our climate scenario analysis process and findings. The scope of this report includes climate-related information for our corporate operations from December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2023. Due to the delayed timing of availability of production and emission data from our Operators, we report portfolio data and analysis one year in arrears from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022. In cases where the report features forward- or backward- looking information to support the narrative, we have specified the referenced time period. Because our approach to climate matters does not change significantly year-over-year, we expect that this report will be updated periodically. We will continue to publish our corporate and Operators’ climate-related data annually as part of our ISR, which focuses on broader ESG topics. ROYAL GOLD GHG EMISSIONS DEFINITIONS Scope 1 emissions: Emissions from sources that Royal Gold owns or controls directly. Royal Gold has no scope 1 emissions. Scope 2 emissions: Emissions that Royal Gold causes indirectly from the energy we purchase and use. Scope 3 emissions: Royal Gold segments scope 3 emissions into two categories, scope 3 corporate emissions and scope 3 investment emissions. We have done this because, as a passive investor, we do not have direct influence or control over Operator emissions but we do manage and assert more control over our own direct footprint. • Scope 3 corporate emissions: Emissions arising from our direct corporate activities, primarily relating to business travel and employee commuting. • Scope 3 investment emissions: Scope 1 and 2 emissions arising from our portfolio Operators.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 5 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD About Royal Gold Royal Gold, Inc. (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, “Royal Gold,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our”) is a leading precious metals stream and royalty company that owns passive stream and royalty interests operated by third-party mining companies. We refer to these third parties as the “Operators.” A metal stream is a purchase agreement that provides, in exchange for an upfront deposit payment, the right to purchase all or a portion of one or more metals produced from a mine, at a price determined for the life of the transaction by the purchase agreement. A royalty is a right to receive a percentage or other denomination of mineral production from a mining operation. The properties where we hold interests span various stages of mining project development, from the initial stages of exploration and evaluation through to development and production. Our Operators make all development and operating decisions, and in general, we have limited to no influence regarding the development or operation of the mineral properties through the contractual arrangements from which our interests are derived. Our business model is designed to provide shareholders with long-term exposure to production and exploration upside and metal price optionality for the entire life of a mining project. Resource growth and mine life extensions can significantly enhance our returns over time. PORTFOLIO MANAGER VS. MINE OWNER AND OPERATOR Royal Gold does not actively own or develop mining properties or participate in mining activities at the properties where we hold stream and royalty interests; instead, our stream and royalty interests are passive interests in mine production. Certain stream investments are primarily used for the development or expansion of a mining operation that contributes to GHG emissions. Stream investments for balance sheet restructuring or mergers and acquisitions, as well as the vast majority of our royalty investments, which are negotiated with third parties, do not contribute to a mine’s emissions or emissions intensity. ROYALTY VS. STREAM Royalty Operator Purchase price to acquire royalty Percentage of revenue or metals (subject to relevant deductions) Stream Physical metal delivery Advance payment to purchase percentage of metal production + delivery payment (per unit delivered) Operator

6 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices OUR PROGRESS 1 Net GEO definition and calculation methodology provided on page 46 . This report presents our continued advancement in assessing how climate change could impact our business and how we are managing associated risks. In our 2022 ESG Report, we provided a discussion of our climate scenario analysis for ten important jurisdictions, based on revenue contribution. Our analytical efforts were supported by Millani, an ESG advisory firm. This report covers the six regions or jurisdictions associated with our Principal Properties, which contributed about 74% of our Net GEOs 1 in 2022, and in addition to our Principal Properties jurisdictions, our climate scenario analysis covers five additional jurisdictions, which cumulatively generated about 18% of our 2022 Net GEOs. All eleven jurisdictions are presented graphically on page 7 . In total, we have considered revenue-generating properties in our climate scenario analysis that made up more than 92% of our Net GEOs in 2022. All jurisdictions have the potential to contribute revenue to Royal Gold for the next ten years or more. Data to support our climate scenario analysis was principally obtained from the Network for Greening the Financial System ’s (“NGFS”) Climate Impact Explorer, the World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, World Resources Institute’s (“WRI”) Aqueduct™ Water Risk Atlas and Skarn Associates’ GHG and Energy databases for gold and copper mines. All of these primary data sources were updated in 2023, which provided a key driver for the updated analysis in this report. We also continued our practice of tracking GHG emissions and energy consumption associated with all of our revenue-generating properties. Data associated with our property portfolio over the period 2018 through 2022 is provided in our ISR and presents an accounting of the emissions that may be attributed to our beneficial interest in the properties. CLIMATE DATA The main data source for temperature and precipitation information is the open-source data published by the Climate Research Unit (“CRU”) associated with East Anglia University in the United Kingdom. Climatic Research Unit gridded Time Series (“CRU TS”) is a widely used climate dataset on a 0.5° latitude by 0.5° longitude grid over all land domains of the world except Antarctica and covering the period 1901-2022. The database is accessible through Google Earth and provides three variables the CRU designates as primary: Mean Temperature (deg C), Diurnal Temperature Range (deg C) and Precipitation Rate (mm/month). Every month in the year has interpolated values for each variable and states how many stations contributed actual data for each gridded estimate. The interpolation targets the closest eight weather stations within a maximum radius. For the reporting of average precipitation and temperature statistics, the time period of 1991 to 2020 was chosen. This 30-year period aligns with the World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, an important reference we used to assess potential climate impacts associated with the various climate scenarios we evaluated. Site visit , Peru

2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 1 11 10 2 4 5 3 6 1 7 8 9 11 10 7 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices Where we are 1 Royal Gold management periodically reviews the materiality of individual royalty and stream interests within the portfolio. In making this determination, management considers primarily estimated future revenue and, to a lesser extent, historical revenue. Estimated future revenue is based on several factors, including mineral reserves and resources subject to our stream and royalty interests, production estimates, feasibility studies, technical reports, metal price and mine life assumptions. 2 For a definition of Net GEO and the calculation methodology, refer to page 46 . As of December 31, 2022, Royal Gold owned stream and royalty interests covering 182 producing, development, evaluation and exploration-stage properties located in some of the world’s most prolific mining regions. Royal Gold’s revenue for the 2022 calendar year was sourced from a geographically and operationally diverse portfolio of primary precious metals and polymetallic mines. The locations of our 40 revenue-generating properties in 2022 are shown in the map below, while highlighting the jurisdictions that host our six Principal Properties 1 and the newly added jurisdictions, which contributed 92% of our Net GEOs in 2022. 2 182 Total Properties 40 Producing 19 Development 52 Evaluation (not shown on map) 71 Exploration (not shown on map) 1-6 Principal Properties 7-11 Important Jurisdictions MINE DETAIL S Northern Nevada (includes Cortez) Andacollo Xavantina Peñasquito Pueblo Viejo Khoemac a u Rainy River Voisey’s Bay Wassa Mount Milligan Western Australia

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 8 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD 1 Northern Nevada 16.0% 2022 Net GEOs Cortez, 10.6% • Open-pit and underground mines • Products: Au doré Other Properties, 5.4% 2 Andacollo Coquimbo, Chile 8.4% 2022 Net GEOs • Large open-pit mine • Products: Cu/Au concentrate 3 Mount Milligan British Columbia, Canada 27.0% 2022 Net GEOs • Large open-pit mine • Products: Cu/Au concentrate 4 Peñasquito Zacatecas, Mexico 7.6% 2022 Net GEOs • Large open-pit mine • Products: Pb and Zn concentrates containing Au and Ag 5 Pueblo Viejo Sánchez Ramírez, Dominican Republic 12.4% 2022 Net GEOs • Open-pit mine • Products: Au/Ag doré 6 Khoemac a u Ngamiland, Botswana 3.1% 2022 Net GEOs • Large underground mine • Products: Cu/Ag concentrate 7 Rainy River Ontario, Canada 5.0% 2022 Net GEOs • Open-pit and underground mines • Products: Au/Ag doré 8 Voisey’s Bay Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada 1.5% 2022 Net GEOs • Open-pit mine transitioning to underground mining • Products: Cu and Ni concentrates and Co cathode 9 Wassa Western Region, Ghana 5.2% 2022 Net GEOs • Primary underground mine supported by open-pits • Products: Au doré 10 Western Australia Various Properties 3.2% 2022 Net GEOs • Open-pit and underground mines • Products: Au doré 11 Xavantina Mato Grosso, Brazil 3.1% 2022 Net GEOs • Low tonnage, high-grade underground mine • Products: Au doré

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 9 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Current climate An assessment of the historic climate data and what that tells us about climate variability and potential for future precipitation and extreme storms is fundamental to understanding climate risk, as well as providing a base to assess potential climate change impacts. The variations that make up climate variability can impact the patterns of factors like rainfall and temperature over different timeframes, ranging from a few weeks to several decades. If a particular event has occurred due to the climate’s natural variability, there is a likelihood that it may recur, excluding any effects attributed to climate change. JURISDICTIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTIONS The eleven jurisdictions selected as important to Royal Gold are geographically and climatologically diverse. They are described in the table on page 10 with respect to historic average temperature and precipitation (1991–2020), the presence or lack of drought conditions over the last five years (2018–2022) and the amount of precipitation recorded from the maximum wet month and year since 1901. An estimate for a 100-year recurrence, 24-hour duration storm is also provided. DEEPENING DROUGHT ANALYSIS WITH THE SPEI INDEX Drought can be thought of as an extended imbalance between precipitation and evaporation. We included a SPEI drought index, which measures the combination of water supply (precipitation) and atmospheric water demand (evapotranspiration, which is based on temperature) to determine whether a certain area is experiencing extreme drought, extreme moisture, or conditions in between. The SPEI index has a time series component, which ranges from 1 month to +48 months. Short-time scales are mainly related to soil water content and river discharge in headwater areas, medium-time scales are related to reservoir storages and discharge in the medium course of the rivers, and long-time scales are related to variations in groundwater storage. Therefore, different time scales are useful for monitoring drought conditions in different hydrological sub-systems. We have chosen to report the average 24-month time series result for the 5-year period, 2018-2022 for the eleven jurisdictions, as calculated by the SPEI Global Drought Monitor, an open source, open line tool with 1.0-degree resolution. HISTORICAL CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS The following are key observations from the historic climate data: • The Coquimbo Region in Chile experienced a wet month that is more than twice the average annual precipitation. • The Ngamiland Region in Botswana and the Mato Grosso Province in Brazil have experienced monthly precipitation volumes equal to more than 70% of average annual precipitation. • The Dominican Republic is the only jurisdiction directly impacted by hurricanes; the Peñasquito operation in Mexico is indirectly impacted by hurricanes due to land transport and port facilities supporting metal concentrate transport; both Western Australia and the Ngamiland Region in Botswana can be in the path of tropical storms, as they downgrade from cyclones while travelling over land. • The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (“SPEI”), an index used to measure drought conditions, indicates the area in Central British Columbia, Canada hosting the Mount Milligan mine has been in a period of Extremely Dry condition on average, using a 24-month time series, over the last five years. • Seven jurisdictions show Moderately to Extremely Dry conditions with respect to average precipitation over the last five years as estimated by the SPEI. MOUNT MILLIGAN – SPEI DROUGHT INDEX, 12-MONTH TIME SERIES -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Mount Milligan - SPEI Drought Index, 12 month time - series Normal Moderately dry Severely dry Extremely dry Operations Initiated Source: SPEI Drought Monitor for coordinate 55.25N, - 124.25E (https://spei.csic.es) Source: SPEI Drought Monitor for coordinate 55.25N, –124.25E ( https://spei.csic.es )

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 10 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Current climate 1 (Reference period 1991–2020) Climate classification Temperature Precipitation Extreme precipitation Jurisdiction Percentage of 2022 Net GEOs 2 Geographic zone Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification 3 Mean annual temperature Diurnal temperature range Mean annual precipitation (mm) Drought conditions 4 24-hour duration 100-year recurrence storm 5 (mm) 1901–2022 precipitation maximums Monthly (mm) Annual (mm) Year of occurrence Ratio largest month/mean Hurricane/ tropical storm risk Principal Properties jurisdictions Central British Columbia, Canada 27.0% Temperate Continental/no dry season/cold summer 1.0 °C 10.8 °C 669 Severely dry 50 157 897 1939 24% Sánchez Ramírez Province , Dominican Republic 12.4% Tropical Tropical/rainforest 24.1 °C 12.1 °C 1,733 Extremely dry 80 641 2,853 1979 37% Hurricane Coquimbo Region, Chile 8.4% Temperate Dry/arid desert/cold 14.7 °C 7.4 °C 118 Moderately dry 110 254 302 1965 216% Northern Nevada 6 , U.S. 16.0% Temperate Dry/steppe/cold 8.9 °C 16.3 °C 305 Moderately dry 50 124 503 1983 41% Cortez 10.6% Robinson 1.9% Other 3.5% State of Zacatecas, Mexico 7.6% Temperate Dry/steppe/hot 19.5 °C 17.3 °C 374 Normal 75 174 581 1976 46% Indirect risk Ngamiland Region, Botswana 3.1% Temperate Dry/steppe/hot 22.9 °C 15.9 °C 420 Normal 90 304 780 1974 72% Tropical storms Sub Total 74.5% Other important jurisdictions Western Region, Ghana 5.3% Tropical Tropical/savanna 26.7 °C 14.8 °C 1,329 Normal 90 583 1,941 1968 44% Ontario, Canada 5.0% Temperate Continental/no dry season/warm 3.3 °C 11.5 °C 722 Normal 80 215 941 2019 30% Western Australia 7 , Australia 3.2% Temperate Dry/arid desert/hot 19.0 °C 14.8 °C 277 Moderately dry 110 120 451 1992 43% Cyclone Newfoundland and Labrador , Canada 1.5% Temperate Continental/no dry season/cold summer -3.8 °C 9.3 °C 837 Moderately dry 75 163 993 1983 19% Mato Grosso State, Brazil 3.1% Tropical Tropical/savanna 25.6 °C 12.4 °C 1,648 Extremely dry 130 1,210 2,083 1964 73% Sub Total 18.1% Total 92.6% 1 Based on data published by East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU), unless otherwise stated. 2 Royal Gold uses the attribution factor, net gold equivalent ounces production (“Net GEO”) for its weighted GHG emissions, energy consumption and water consumption from each Property in which we hold a stream or royalty interest with the calculation methodology presented on page 46 . 3 Climate descriptions based on Oregon State University descriptions of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification. 4 Based on the average Standard Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (“SPEI”) for the 5-year period 2019–2023, using a time series that varied from 6 to 48 months, depending on the jurisdiction and important property within the jurisdiction. A detailed description of the SPEI drought index is presented on page 9 . The SPEI index is relative to average or normal conditions for the site, and the SPEI scale: 0.99 to -0.99 Normal, -1.00 to -1.49 Moderately dry, -1.50 to -1.99 Severely dry, <-2.00 Extremely dry. 5 Based on data from the World Bank Group’s Climate Knowledge Portal. 6 Climate statistics based on the Cortez mine site. 7 Climate statistics based on the South Laverton property. Interannual  variability  can  be  a  significant  water  risk.  This  risk  is  highlighted  in  the  table  where  the  wettest  month  in  the  precipitation  record  is  divided  by  the  average  annual  precipitation.  Three  jurisdictions  stand  out  as  having  unusually  high  ratios:  Coquimbo,  Chile;  Zacatecas,  Mexico;  and  Mato  Grosso,  Brazil,  indicating  the  potential  to  have  precipitation  that  could  potentially  cause  flooding.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 11 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Historical climate impacts Climate-related events have resulted in the deferral of production from several sites where we have stream and royalty interest in recent years, with notable impacts disclosed by Operators described below. It is important to stress that climate event impacts can be magnified or reduced through effective site design and management. Mount Milligan Water Shortage: The mine site was designed to collect and store water for use in the process plant from spring snowmelt. In December 2017, the operation was temporarily shut down and restarted with curtailed production through April 2018 as a result of a water shortage. A further production curtailment was experienced between December 2018 and March 2019. The water shortages were in part due to lower-than-average precipitation during the winter months, which impacted spring run-off, the primary water source for the operation. Mount Milligan Transportation Flooding: In November 2021, British Columbia experienced severe flooding, which impacted concentrate transport routes from Mount Milligan to the port of Vancouver; however, no material delays of stream metal deliveries were noted due to this event. Rainy River Pit Flooding: The mine’s water management infrastructure was inundated with several months of well-above-average precipitation between April and July 2022, which resulted in the maximum water storage capacity being reached and in turn prevented dewatering of the open-pit to allow for production access to planned mining areas. Revisions required in the mining plan delayed production and caused the mine operator to reduce annual production guidance. Andacollo Pit Flooding: Heavy precipitation at the Andacollo property in July 2022 resulted in flooding of portions of the open-pit, impacting production. Andacollo Water Shortage: An extended period with very low precipitation from mid-2022 to present is expected to reduce production through 2024. Robinson Mine Water Surplus: Historically high snowfall events followed by snow melt resulted in impacts to the open-pit operation in Q1 and Q2 2023 and continued impacts into Q3, resulting in reduced production. Wassa Pit Flooding: Unprecedented rainfall in June 2023 resulted in the flooding of open-pit and underground production areas, which caused a reduction in scheduled production. Peñasquito: Hurricane Orlene in October of 2022 contributed to delayed concentrate shipments from the port of Manzanillo on the west coast of Mexico, resulting in delayed revenue. Pueblo Viejo: Tropical storms and hurricanes are an annual occurrence in the Dominican Republic, and these have impacts on production; however, we believe due to robust facilities and operating practices, the impacts have not resulted in significant production loss, to date. HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM TRACKS 1973–2022 Storm tracks across the Dominican Republic show that Pueblo Viejo operation and surrounding areas are routinely impacted by the storm events. Tropical storm and hurricane tracks show storm status diminished before reaching the Peñasquito operation, while coastal areas and ports of export are routinely within storm tracks. Cyclones reach the north and west coast of Western Australia and diminish in intensity to tropical storm status as they reach the Kalgoorlie area. Cyclones diminish to tropical storms as they reach land along the east coast of southern Africa, with a limited number of storms reaching the Khoemac a u site. Extratropical Tropical  Depression Tropical  Storm Category  1 Category  2 Category  3 Category  4 Category  5

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 12 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Governance In This Section Board oversight Management’s role Site visit , British Columbia, Canada

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 13 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Board oversight Royal Gold’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) consists of individuals with diverse qualifications and experience that align with our business strategy. Each Director contributes a distinct perspective to promote the best interests of Royal Gold and our stakeholders. Our Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee (“CNG Committee”) has identified substantive areas of experience that the Board should represent. At the Board level, responsibility for ESG oversight, including climate change, is assigned to the CNG Committee, which includes three members who self-assess as having ESG experience. All members are independent under Nasdaq and SEC rules, including enhanced independence rules applicable to compensation committee members. Our ISR contains a detailed listing of each Board member’s areas of experience. All Board members are active participants in reviewing and approving any material new stream or royalty interest proposed by management for acquisition. This includes review of the summary findings from technical due diligence, which routinely includes GHG emissions estimates and current and future jurisdictional risks associated with climate, water and biodiversity for an operation and associated local communities. Management also routinely provides an estimate of the potential impact of GHG emissions and emission intensity from any new material stream or royalty interest on the portfolio. Summaries of the operational performance of our stream and royalty portfolio are provided to the entire Board on a quarterly basis which highlight any material climate-related Operator impacts. A detailed description of our Board and Board members is presented in our ISR. Royal Gold Director Fabiana Chubbs completed the Institute of Corporate Directors course Board Oversight of Climate Change in 2023. “ Climate change is a topic we as a Board are continuously reviewing and discussing. Given the increasing complexities associated with climate change, I felt the need to increase and expand my knowledge on the subject. I participated in a three-day Board Oversight of Climate Change course in 2023 with 16 of my peers. Together, we discussed various strategies to enhance boardroom discussions on the monitoring and disclosure of climate-related risks.” Fabiana Chubbs Royal Gold Director since 2021

14 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices Management’s role Direct management of and responsibility for ESG considerations, including climate risk and climate change, is assigned to our President and CEO. Our VP, Investment Stewardship is also tasked with the oversight and management of ESG matters. Our business depends to a significant degree on our ability to identify, understand and manage sustainability and climate risks inherent in our investments. For this reason, consideration of ESG and climate-related risks is an important part of the development of our corporate strategy, enterprise risk management process and ongoing oversight. Board of Directors Enterprise Risk Management Senior management team Considers present and potential risks to Royal Gold’s ongoing success, including ESG and climate change considerations, and determines appropriate risk mitigation actions and strategies ESG Committee Senior management team Ensures that Royal Gold’s sustainability initiatives are effectively monitored, managed, and fulfilled. Business Development Senior management team Ensures that Royal Gold completes thorough due diligence and risk assessments for potential new stream and royalty opportunities, including climate and climate change risks Corporate Strategic Planning Senior management team Comprehensive Strategic Plan, including Sustainability and climate change objectives, with annual short-term and long-term goals Report quarterly and as otherwise appropriate to the CNG Committee Opportunity specific presentation materials to full Board (two separate presentations) Report quarterly and as otherwise appropriate Oversight and direction provided as required; ERM program reviewed annually Provides direction and approvals/ rejections as required Strategic Plan presented annually R I S K S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S

15 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices Strategy In This Section Climate strategy Climate scenario analysis Climate scenario 1: Current policies Climate scenario 2: Delayed transition Climate scenario 3: Net Zero 2050 Water risk Future water risk Physical risk summary Transition risk summary Financial risk Climate change risk summary Climate-related opportunities Organizational resilience to climate change impacts Site visit , British Columbia, Canada

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 16 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Climate strategy We recognize that it is our responsibility to address the risks that affect our business, which increasingly include the impacts of a changing climate. In our 2021 ESG Report, we committed to improving our climate-related disclosure in line with the TCFD framework and in 2022, we engaged Millani, an ESG advisory firm, to support our efforts in conducting a climate scenario analysis to help us better understand the climate-related risks and opportunities that we face. CORPORATE APPROACH We have internally tracked the GHG emissions associated with our corporate activities since 2020 and most recently reported our direct corporate emissions in our 2021 and 2022 ESG Reports. Since 2021, we have committed to maintaining carbon neutrality for our corporate operations and will continue to evaluate ways we can reduce our direct carbon footprint. Since June 2020, we have purchased carbon credits to offset those of our corporate emissions that we are not able to reduce or eliminate. For more information on our corporate emissions performance and our commitment to carbon-neutrality with respect to our direct corporate emissions, please see pages 55–57 of our 2023 ISR. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO APPROACH In 2022, we continued our engagement with Millani to help us advance our climate scenario analysis in support of our climate change risk analysis. Our Climate Playbook was developed, defining three climate scenarios, the physical and transitional risk drivers on which to focus with respect to our asset portfolio, and the appropriate timeframes for analysis. With the basic climate scenario parameters established, we worked with Millani to develop a qualitative risk assessment with respect to 10 assets and jurisdictions that generated about 84% of our Net GEOs in 2021. In 2022, we independently expanded the assets and jurisdictions included in our analysis, which now includes greater than 92% of our 2022 Net GEOs, using the same risk identification approach. We continued to advance and enhance our tracking and understanding of energy usage and resulting emissions associated with our portfolio for the five-year period, 2018–2022. This involved understanding the changes that the Operators of the properties associated with our stream and royalty interests implemented or plan to implement to their operations to reduce GHG emissions and the commitment the Operators have publicly made to reduce emissions. This understanding allows us to assess what the future emissions from the portfolio might look like and how additional investments might impact that future view. Thesis Gold’s Lawyers Property , British Columbia, Canada

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 17 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Climate scenario analysis OUR APPROACH We systematically define climate-related risks within our portfolio of revenue-generating stream and royalty interests in part using climate scenario analysis. Our process is defined in the flowchart. We rely on publicly available information to complete our climate scenario analysis. We specifically relied on the NGFS, the World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, the Water Resources Institute’s Aqueduct™ Water Risk Atlas tool, along with various risk specific technical documents. Given our limited access to mine site level information, our assessments are high level in nature and the granularity of our data is typically at a state, provincial or watershed level versus being focused on a specific mining site. We also have limited knowledge concerning the physical systems the mine sites may have to address physical climate risks. Define Risks for Each Jurisdiction The NGFS Climate Impact Explorer, World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal, and the World Resources Institute Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas were all key data sources used to provide data and climate projections for risk analysis Define Climate Scenarios We selected three climate scenarios defined by the NGFS to allow analysis of a range of physical and transition risks DEFINE FINANCIAL IMPACTS Qualitative financial impacts were assessed for the Operators of each asset in the eleven jurisdictions and then we defined how those potential Operator impacts affect Royal Gold’s financial performance DEFINE PHYSICAL RISK DRIVERS We looked at each of our key jurisdictions and Principal Properties to define a set of physical risks through a workshop. We tested those risks across the 11 jurisdictions to understand level of importance and variation. DEFINE TRANSITION RISK DRIVERS We looked at each of our key jurisdictions and Principal Properties to define a set of transition risks through a workshop. DEFINE ASSESSMENT TIMEFRAMES Timeframes are required to assess risks in the short, medium and long term. A rationale was developed to define the three time periods.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 18 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD OUR CLIMATE SCENARIOS Our assessment of the impacts of climate change on our Operators has been informed by the NGFS, which were updated in 2023 with the issuance of Phase IV of their climate scenarios. The scenarios are not meant to be forecasts or comprehensive; rather, they explore different plausible but intentionally adverse transition pathways consistent with achieving specific climate targets. We selected three climate change scenarios to assess potential physical and transition impacts on the mining operations and jurisdictions where we hold stream and royalty interests and how those impacts may affect our business: ORDERLY TRANSITION SCENARIO: NET ZERO 2050 Net Zero 2050 is an ambitious scenario that limits global warming to 1.5 °C through stringent climate policies and innovation, reaching net zero CO 2 emissions around 2050, giving at least a 50% chance of limiting global warming to below 1.5°C by the end of the century. Physical risks are relatively low, but transition risks are high. DISORDERLY TRANSITION SCENARIO: DELAYED TRANSITION Assumes new climate policies are not introduced until 2030. Strong policies are then needed to limit warming to below 2°C. Carbon removal technologies are limited. As a result, emissions exceed the carbon budget temporarily and decline rapidly to ensure there is a chance of limiting global warming to below 2°C. This can lead to both higher transition and physical risks than the Net Zero 2050 Scenario. This scenario has the same physical risks as the Current Policies scenario through about 2035. HOT HOUSE WORLD SCENARIO: CURRENT POLICIES Assumes that only currently implemented policies (through March 2023) are preserved, with emissions growing until 2080, leading to around 3°C global warming and severe physical risks. The graphics at the right and below highlight the differences between the three climate scenarios in terms of risk intensity (transition and physical), global CO 2 emissions over time and global GDP impact from climate risks over time. NET ZERO 2050 1 2030 2040 2050 -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 87.0 87.1 93.5 -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050 DEL AYED TR ANSITION 1 2030 2040 2050 -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 87.0 87.1 93.5 -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050 CURRENT POLICIES 1 2030 2040 2050 -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 87.0 87.1 93.5 -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050 1 Global GDP impact by climate risk source percent difference from baseline/year. Note: The above figure shows how GDP is impacted across scenarios compared with a hypothetical (and impossible) baseline scenario in which no transition or physical risks occur. This baseline scenario represents a world in which climate change does not occur. Thus, climate change has a negative impact on GDP in every plausible scenario, but the magnitude of the losses differs across them. GDP forecasts were generated by NiGEM, a macroeconomic model that has been expanded to assess the effect of climate change, while input into the model was provided by REMIND, a numerical model that incorporates the economy and climate change and presents a detailed representation of the energy sector. 2 Positioning of scenarios is approximate, based on an assessment of physical and transition risks out to 2100. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (acute) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (chronic) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (transition) NGFS CLIM ATE SCENARIOS 2 High High Low Low Physical Risks Disorderly Orderly Too little, too late Hot house world Transition Risks Delayed Transition Net Zero 2050 Current Policies GLOBAL ANNUAL CO 2 EMISSIONS BY SCENARIO 0 10 20 30 40 50 2020 2030 (Gt CO 2 ) 2040 2050 2060 Net Zero 2050 Delayed Transition Current Policies Source: NGFS Climate Scenario Database, (average of REMIND, GVAM 5.3, MESSAGE ix models) Current Policies Delayed Transition Net Zero 2050 Source: NGFS Climate Scenario Database (average of REMIND, GCAM 5.3, MESSAGEix models).

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 19 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Climate scenario 1: Current policies The Current Policies scenario assumes that only currently implemented government policies are preserved, leading to high physical risks. Under this scenario, emissions grow until 2080, leading to about 3°C of warming and severe physical risks. This includes irreversible changes like higher sea level increases. In this scenario, coal remains a key energy source until 2100. Oil consumption is reduced and replaced with natural gas, while energy from wind and solar continues to grow. At the end of the century, primary renewable power from wind and solar will represent only 52% of primary energy. With respect to important jurisdictions containing our stream and royalty interests, Canada is the only jurisdiction with meaningful carbon taxation in place, and under this scenario carbon taxation is assumed to remain the same. CURRENT POLICIES – PRIM ARY ENERGY MIX 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2020 Oil Coal Gas Nuclear Biomass Geothermal Wind Solar Hydro WORLD AVER AGE SURFACE TEMPER ATURE °C above pre-industrial levels Source: IISA NGFS Climate Scenarios Database, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM 1.1-M-R12 model 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 0 90%– 10% Current Policies Median Current Policies Median Delayed Transition Median Net Zero 2050 Source: IISA NGFS Climate Scenarios Database, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM 1.1-M-R12 model.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 20 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Climate scenario 2: Delayed transition The Delayed Transition scenario assumes global annual emissions do not start decreasing until 2030. Strong policies will be needed to limit warming to below 2°C, and the level of action will differ across countries and regions based on currently implemented policies. As a result, emissions will exceed the carbon budget temporarily and decline rapidly after 2030 to ensure a 67% chance of limiting global warming to below 2°C. This will lead to higher transition and physical risks than those in the Net Zero 2050 scenario. The physical risks will be similar to those of the Current Policies scenario, up to the mid-2030s. In this scenario, the use of coal dramatically declines after 2030, and primary renewable energy – namely, wind and solar – will increase quickly to achieve 74% of the energy mix by 2100. Shadow carbon pricing shows an escalating profile starting in 2030, increasing to about $365/tCO 2 e by 2050 and continuing to rise. Shadow carbon pricing is a proxy for government policy intensity and changes in technology and consumer preferences. DEL AYED TR ANSITION – PRIM ARY ENERGY MIX 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2020 GLOBAL SHADOW CARBON PRICING – DEL AYED TR ANSITION Source: NGFS Climate Scenario Database, (average of REMIND, GVAM 5.3, MESSAGE ix models) 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (US$/tCO 2 e) $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 Source: NGFS Climate Scenario Database (average of REMIND, GCAM 5.3, MESSAGEix models). Oil Coal Gas Nuclear Biomass Geothermal Wind Solar Hydro

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 21 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Climate scenario 3: Net Zero 2050 Net Zero 2050 is an ambitious scenario that limits global warming to 1.5°C through stringent climate policies and innovation, to reach net zero CO 2 emissions around 2050, consistent with the Paris Agreement. This scenario assumes that ambitious climate policies are introduced immediately. Carbon dioxide removal is used to accelerate decarbonization at the minimum possible rate, broadly in line with sustainable levels of bioenergy production. Physical risks are relatively low and transition risks are high. The transition risk economic impacts are greater for this scenario through about 2040 than the Delayed Transition scenario. Carbon pricing shows an escalating profile starting immediately and increasing past 2050, with the shadow carbon pricing exceeding $1,000/tCO 2 e. A discussion of shadow carbon pricing is provided on page 41 of the report. As a primary energy source, coal will be reduced significantly by 2030 with a dramatic increase in renewable primary energy sources, wind and solar, to 76%. NET ZERO 2050 – PRIM ARY ENERGY MIX 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2020 GLOBAL SHADOW CARBON PRICING – NET ZERO 2050 Source: NGFS Climate Scenario Database, (average of REMIND, GVAM 5.3, MESSAGE ix models) 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (US$/tCO 2 e) $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1.000 $1,200 $1,400 Oil Coal Gas Nuclear Biomass Geothermal Wind Solar Hydro Source: NGFS Climate Scenario Database, Phase IV (average of REMIND, GCAM 5.3, MESSAGEix models).

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 22 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD COMPARING CLIMATE SCENARIOS Current policies Delayed transition Net Zero 2050 NGFS Warming Level 1 2030 1.5 1.5 1.5 2040 1.7 1.7 1.6 2050 1.9 1.7 1.5 2100 2.8 1.6 1.3 Physical risk medium-term 3–10 years Physical risks increasing Physical risks increasing Physical risks increasing Physical risk long-term 10+ years, 2035 High and increasing physical risks Physical risks start declining after 2040 Physical risks start declining after 2030 Transition risk medium-term 3–10 years Low transition risks Low transition risks High transition risks Transition risk long-term 10+ years, 2035 Low transition risks High transition risks High transition risks Policy ambition +3°C 1.6°C 1.5°C Policy reaction None – 2023 policies Delayed until 2030 Immediate and smooth Technology change Slow Fast after 2030 Fast Carbon dioxide removal Low use Medium use after 2030 Medium-high use Policy variation Low High Medium use 1 Warming Level: Each scenario will have the same physical parameters and impacts at the same warming level. For instance, at the warming level of 1.5, all three scenarios would share the same physical risks.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 23 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Water risk Water-related risks are one of the parameters we assess when looking at climate-related risks and potential impacts on our stream and royalty interests as we advance our climate scenario analysis. Our stream and royalty interests are geographically and climatologically diverse. In 2021, we looked to systematically understand the risk in our portfolio associated with water supply to be able to independently and effectively communicate our findings to stakeholders; we have updated that review for this report. We based this initial assessment of our eleven important jurisdictions on a global water risk mapping tool, Aqueduct™ Water Risk Atlas, developed by the WRI. The Atlas is based on a framework of eight physical water risk indicators: Water Stress, Water Depletion, Interannual Variability, Seasonal Variability, Groundwater Table Decline, Riverine Flood Risk, Coastal Flood Risk and Drought Risk. We have focused on four of the water risk indicators: Water Stress, Interannual Variability, Seasonal Variability and Drought Risk. While we recognize that Riverine Flood Risk is important to understand we felt the Water Risk Atlas was not granular enough to be meaningful for the producing sites. The assessment identified at least one water risk indicator that has a High or Extremely High designation in five of our eleven jurisdictions with two of those jurisdictions being classified as Arid/Low Water Usage, which have the potential to change classification to High or Extremely High with additional data or an increase in water users. Historically, we have seen production impacts in our portfolio from the lack of available water at the Mount Milligan operation in Central British Columbia that collects and stores surface water, and at the Andacollo mine in the Coquimbo Region in Chile, which relies on groundwater wells for its water supply. Baseline Water Stress measures the ratio of total water withdrawals to available renewable surface and groundwater supplies. Water withdrawals include domestic, industrial, irrigation, and livestock consumptive and nonconsumptive uses. Available renewable water supplies include the impact of upstream consumptive water users and large dams on downstream water availability. Higher values indicate more competition among users. Interannual Variability measures the average between-year variability of available water supply, including both renewable surface and groundwater supplies. Higher values indicate wider variations in available supply from year to year. Seasonal Variability measures the average within- year variability of available water supply, including both renewable surface and groundwater supplies. Higher values indicate wider variations of available supply within a year, and can be important to properties that collect water during the rainy season. Drought Risk measures where droughts are likely to occur, the population and assets exposed, and the vulnerability of the population and assets to adverse effects. Higher values indicate higher risk of drought. Current water risk assessment 1 Jurisdiction Percentage of 2022 Net GEOs Water stress 2 Interannual variability Seasonal variability Drought risk Principal Properties jurisdictions Central British Columbia Canada 27.0% Low Low-Medium Low-Medium Low Sánchez Ramírez Province Dominican Republic 12.4% Low-Medium Low-Medium Low Medium-High Coquimbo Region Chile 8.4% Extreme Extreme Low-Medium Medium Northern Nevada U.S. 16.0% Extreme High Low-Medium Low-Medium State of Zacatecas Mexico 7.6% Arid/Low Water Usage Extreme Medium-High Medium Ngamiland Region Botswana 3.1% Arid/Low Water Usage Extreme Medium-High Low-Medium Other important jurisdictions Western Region Ghana 5.3% Low Low-Medium Low Medium Ontario Canada 5.0% Low Low-Medium Low Low-Medium Western Australia Australia 3.2% Low Extreme Low-Medium Low-Medium Mato Grosso State Brazil 3.1% Low Low-Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium Newfoundland and Labrador Canada 1.5% Low Low-Medium Low-Medium No data Total 92.6% 1 Aqueduct™ Water Risk Atlas 4.0, Water Resources Institute. Aqueduct™ Indicators provide estimates for water risk with a resolution of approximately 10 km x 10 km. 2 Arid/Low Water Usage indicates sub-basins that have both annual available water <0.03 meters per year and annual baseline gross total withdrawal of <0.012 meters per year.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 24 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Future water risk The Aqueduct™ Water Risk Atlas also provides a tool to assess the change in four of the water stress indicators under three climate scenarios. WRI’s Business-as-Usual climate scenario is similar to NGFS’s Current Policies scenario. Evaluating our eleven jurisdictions against WRI’s Business-as-Usual climate scenario for three of our important water stress indicators: Baseline Water Stress, Interannual Variability and Seasonable Variability and comparing the results to Aqueduct’s current assessments for those indicators show that six of our eleven jurisdictions would see an increase in one of the three parameters while three jurisdictions would see modest decreases in interannual variability, as assessed for 2050. This analysis supports our qualitative physical risk assessment and indicates jurisdictions that may have higher sensitivities to a changing climate. Baseline water quantity stress Interannual variability Seasonal variability Aqueduct baseline water stress risk change Aqueduct interannual variability risk change Aqueduct seasonal variability risk change Jurisdiction Percentage of 2022 Net GEOs Arid/low water use Low Low- medium Medium High- medium High Extreme Low Low- medium Medium High- medium High Extreme Low Low- medium Medium High- medium High Extreme Central British Columbia Canada 27.0% Sánchez Ramírez Province Dominican Republic 12.4% Increasing Northern Nevada U.S. 16.0% Decreasing State of Zacatecas Mexico 7.6% Decreasing Coquimbo Region Chile 8.4% Increasing Ngamiland Region Botswana 3.1% Increasing Western Region Ghana 5.3% Increasing Ontario Canada 5.0% Western Australia Australia 3.2% Increasing Mato Grosso State Brazil 3.1% Increasing Newfoundland and Labrador Canada 1.5% Decreasing Total 92.6% Current  assessment Indicates  an  increase  in  the  water  quantity  stress  indicator Indicates  a  decrease  in  the  water  quantity  stress  indicator

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 25 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Physical risk summary The physical climate-related stressors and associated risks defined through our climate scenario analysis process for the eleven jurisdictions evaluated are summarized in the table to the right. Physical climate risks are most prominently associated with the Current Policies climate scenario. We make assumptions regarding how these risks may manifest themselves in the defined jurisdictions and how they may impact the operations of our revenue- generating properties. Given the granularity of data needed to project changes in climate parameters and associated operational impacts, such data require a high degree of site-specific knowledge, which we do not possess; therefore, our assessments are based on the jurisdictions and should be considered assumptive. Our observations represent our long-term time horizon (i.e., 10+ years), and we have chosen 2035 as our measurement point for forecast impacts presented. We have chosen six risk drivers: heat stress, wildfires, water stress (drought and precipitation variability) and flooding (site and transport infrastructure) to assess the physical risk associated with the jurisdictions. A description of the physical risk drivers is presented on page 40 , while the table to the right indicates the presence of each risk driver in the 11 jurisdictions assessed. The physical risk list is not considered exhaustive. Climate stressors Temperature Precipitation Extreme storms Physical risks Jurisdiction Percentage of 2022 Net GEOs Increase Increase Decrease Increase in intensity and/or frequency Heat stress Wildfires Water stress Flooding Precipitation variability Drought Site Transport infrastructure Principal Properties jurisdictions Central British Columbia Canada 27.0% Sánchez Ramírez Province Dominican  Republic 12.4% Northern Nevada U.S. 16.0% State of Zacatecas Mexico 7.6% Coquimbo Region Chile 8.4% Ngamiland Region Botswana 3.1% Other important jurisdictions Western Region Ghana  5.3% Ontario Canada 5.0% Western Australia Australia 3.2% Mato Grosso State Brazil 3.1% Newfoundland and Labrador Canada 1.5% Total 92.6% Yes ◆ May be directly or indirectly impacted by tropical storms and hurricanes

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 26 Transition risk summary Both the Net Zero 2050 and the Delayed Transition climate scenarios assume dramatic regulatory changes to reduce GHG emissions; these would result in a significant increase in the shadow price for emitted carbon, a proxy that encompasses government policy intensity and changes in technology and consumer preferences (see page 41 for a more detailed description of shadow carbon price). The Delayed Transition climate scenario does not see regulatory changes until 2030, while the Net Zero 2050 climate scenario sees immediate regulatory changes driving an increase in the shadow carbon price estimated and used by NGFS. To estimate potential transition risk impacts, an estimate of the carbon emissions associated with each of our properties is required along with an estimate of the shadow carbon price. Our transition risk assessment was based on the following: • The intensity of GHG emissions (tCO 2 e/unit of production) for each operation was obtained from Skarn Associates databases of energy and GHG emissions for the year 2025, the furthest forecast year available. • To assess the potential transition risks in the medium term (three to ten years), we chose 2030 with shadow carbon pricing driven by the Net Zero 2050 climate scenario. • To assess potential transition risk impacts in the long- term time horizon (i.e., 10+ years), we chose 2035 as our measurement point for assessing impacts and again used the shadow carbon pricing estimates from the Net Zero 2050 climate scenario, as they were more aggressive than the shadow carbon pricing estimates from the Delayed Transition climate scenario for the measurement period chosen. • Carbon pricing in 2023 was subtracted from the shadow carbon price estimates for Canada, as such costing should already be part of an operation’s cost structure. • By multiplying the emission intensity by the shadow carbon price, a cost impact per unit of production (US$/GEO or US$/lb copper) is estimated and we assumed a gold price of US$1850/oz and a copper price of US$4.00/lb to present estimated cost impacts in terms of a percentage of the metal prices. Our approach does not take into account how metal prices might move in response to the application of carbon pricing or which operations may be successful at decarbonizing. The transition climate-related stressors and associated risks defined through our climate scenario analysis process for the 11 jurisdictions evaluated are summarized in the table on page 27 . Several important operations for us are forecast to come to the end of their currently defined mine lives in the mid- 2030s, so the impact for shorter-lived assets tends to be mitigated given the shorter lives. We note, however, that successful exploration has the potential to extend the production lives of all properties reviewed. Although our transition risk analysis has focused on the impact of applying carbon pricing to our 11 operations being evaluated, transition risk can also manifest themselves in the following ways: social unrest, which could be driven by general cost of living increases, increased unemployment or the availability of services such as power and water. Increasing costs relative to any increase in commodity prices could reduce mineral reserve and resources at mines that have a higher cost structure or heavy emissions footprint and/or provide a disincentive for further exploration to extend mine life. 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 27 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Operational parameters Shadow carbon prices Carbon price impact Estimate as a percentage of metal prices Qualitative transition risk potential impacts: medium term (M) and long term (L) Percentage of 2022 Net GEOs Stream or royalty metal Production life 1 (years) Total cost curve position (2022) Electrical grid emission intensity description (Skarn Associates) Medium term Average 2025–2030 Long term 2035 Forecast GHG emission intensity (2025) Medium term Long term Loss/delay due to social unrest Mineral reserve or resource loss Mine life extension at risk Jurisdiction US$/tCO 2 e US$/tCO 2 e tCO 2 e/GEO tCO 2 e/tCu Gold price: Copper price: $1,850 $4.00 Principal Properties jurisdictions Mount Milligan British  Columbia,  Canada GEO 1st Low carbon $184 $404 0.22 -2% -5% 27.0% Copper +2035 2nd $184 $404 3.30 -7% -15% L L Pueblo Viejo Dominican  Republic 12.4% GEO +2044 1st Broad mix $193 $416 2.79 -29% -63% L M/L L Carmen del Andacollo Chile 8.4% Copper +2036 4th Low carbon $193 $416 3.20 -7% -15% L L L Cortez Gold Mines Nevada,  U.S. 16.0% GEO +2042 1st Fossil light $225 $410 0.53 -6% -12% L L Peñasquito Mine Zacatecas,  Mexico 7.6% GEO +2032 1st Broad mix $201 $395 0.63 -7% -13% L L L Khoemac a u Botswana 3.1% Copper +2040 3rd Coal dominant $154 $359 6.30 -11% -26% L M/L L Other important jurisdictions Wassa Mine Ghana 5.3% GEO 2037 2nd Fossil light $154 $359 0.21 -2% -4% L L L Rainy River Mine Ontario,  Canada 5.0% GEO +2031 3rd Low carbon $184 $404 0.62 -6% -14% L L Various Mines Western  Australia 3.2% GEO +2030 2nd Broad mix $213 $359 0.50 -6% -10% L L Xavantina Mine Mato  Grosso,  Brazil 3.1% GEO +2028 1st Fossil light $204 $437 0.09 -1% -2% L L L Voisey’s Bay Mine Newfoundland  and  Labrador,  Canada 1.5% Copper +2036 1st Self generation $184 $404 2.10 -4% -10% L L Total 92.6% 1 Production life is based on reported ore reserves and/or technical reports issues by the Operator, while “+” indicates extension due to the conversion of mineral resources to reserves or the potential for exploration success to add additional production life. Good  Poor

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 28 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Financial risk FINANCIAL IMPACTS The financial impacts of climate-related issues on an organization are driven by the specific climate-related risks and opportunities to which the organization is exposed and its strategic and risk management decisions (i.e., mitigate, transfer, accept or control), and action taken (or not) on those opportunities. The TCFD identifies four major categories through which climate-related risks and opportunities may affect an organization’s current and future financial positions: revenues, expenditures, assets and liabilities, and capital and financing. Expenditures (income statement): We are not the operator of any of the mining assets that make up our portfolio of mineral investments; therefore, we generally have no direct cost exposure to the operations. However, we may see an increase in our expenditures if we elect to or are required to purchase carbon offsets associated with our scope 3 investment emissions. Revenue (income statement): Our revenue is derived from the production (and sale) of metals and mineral commodities at the operations where we hold stream and royalty interests. Climate risk may impact the Operators’ ability to produce as planned, thus possibly impacting our revenue. Assets and liabilities (balance sheet): Our stream and royalty interests in the production, development and exploration stages are carried at cost on our balance sheet. Production stage stream and royalty interests are depleted using the units of production method over the life of the mineral property (as stream sales occur or royalty payments are recognized), which are estimated using proven and probable reserves as provided to us by the operator. Development and exploration stage stream or royalty interests are not depleted until the property begins production. The carrying values of our stream and royalty interests are subject to commodity price, reserve and production risks over the life of mine. Should there be a significant decrease in price, reserves or production over time, we will evaluate each of our mineral interests for possible impairment (i.e. write down of the carrying value) in accordance with our policy and in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Capital and financing (balance sheet): We use our available liquidity, which includes cash, operating cash flows and availability under our revolving credit facility to help fund the growth of our business. There is risk that the cost of debt could be impacted by lenders’ views of our climate risk exposure. CLIMATE-RELATED RISKS, OPPORTUNITIES AND FINANCIAL IMPACT Risks Royal Gold FINANCIAL IMPACT ON ROYAL Operators of Our Stream and Royalty Interests INCOME STATEMENT CASH FLOW STATEMENT BALANCE SHEET Transition Risks Carbon Pricing Regulation Technology Revenue Royal Gold Attributed Mineral Resources and Reserves Physical Risks Acute Chronic Opportunities Carbon Offset Expenditures Cost of Financing Energy Efficiency Energy Source Electrification

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 29 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD FINANCIAL RISK STEMMING FROM PHYSICAL RISKS The table below summarizes how our selected physical risks may impact our financial performance and provides general commentary on the risks and which jurisdictions and properties may carry each risk. We do not consider our list of risks to be exhaustive, and we expect that our risks will be updated and expanded with time. Given that our measurement period for the analysis is 2035, we have determined that the defined physical risks and subsequent financial impacts would apply to all three of the climate scenarios we assessed, while the magnitude of the impacts may be marginally smaller in the Net Zero 2050 scenario. Potential financial impacts Risks and impacts Jurisdiction and sites Our Operators Our Company Acute physical risks Flooding – Site: Increased rainfall from extreme storms, high interannual precipitation variability or hurricanes could potentially result in the flooding of open pits and underground facilities, the capacity maximization or failure of water management and or tailing storage facilities, and/or unpermitted discharges All jurisdictions/sites Capital costs: Increased costs associated with additional water management facilities could result Revenue: Possible reduced production and revenue due to the inability to access planned production areas Revenue: Loss or delay of revenue Balance sheet: Mineral property impairment Flooding – Regional infrastructure: Increased rainfall from extreme storms can impact regional transportation infrastructure (road and railroad), delaying the transport of people and materials to the site and the transport of metal concentrates from the site to ports Canada: Mount Milligan Botswana: Khoemac a u Mexico: Peñasquito Dominican Republic: Pueblo Viejo Revenue: Delays in revenue could result due to production curtailments or production reductions associated with not having the required people and/ or supplies at the site, or delays in shipping metal concentrates Revenue: Delay of revenue Wildfires: Increasing temperatures with larger dry spells and reduced humidity may increase the risk of wildfires, which could curtail production at operations due to impacted labor and supplies logistics; could also impact power distribution systems and/or create safety concerns for underground mine ventilation Botswana: Khoemac a u U.S.: Cortez Canada: Mount Milligan Dominican Republic: Pueblo Viejo Australia: Various sites Brazil: Xavantina Capital costs: Wildfire presents the potential for the loss of, or damage to, site buildings and power distribution infrastructure Revenue: Possible delays in revenue generation due to production curtailment Revenue: Loss or delays in receiving revenue Balance sheet: Mineral property impairment Chronic physical risks Drought/water scarcity: A combination of less precipitation, higher temperatures, longer dry spells and heat spells could impact both short- and long-term water availability or water stress for other stakeholders Chile: Andacollo Mexico: Peñasquito U.S.: Cortez Botswana: Khoemac a u Dominican Republic: Pueblo Viejo Capital costs: Increased costs for additional water storage, water wells, water collection infrastructure or technology to reduce water usage are possible Operating costs: Increased costs to procure process water or support other water users Revenue: Production curtailment due to lack of water Revenue: Loss or delay of revenue Drought/water scarcity – Permitting: A combination of less precipitation, higher temperatures, longer dry spells and heat spells could, over the long term, impact water sources used by agriculture, or traditional or Indigenous peoples, increasing the difficulty to obtain permits for production extension U.S.: Cortez Chile: Andacollo Mexico: Peñasquito Revenue: The inability to obtain permits to extend production life could result in lost revenue Revenue: Loss or delay of revenue Heat stress: Increased temperature in an already-hot and relatively humid environment will reduce the productivity of manual work and increase costs; it may also cause health and safety concerns for workers, and increase equipment cooling requirements and/or reduce electrical equipment service life Ghana: Wassa Brazil: Xavantina Dominican Republic: Pueblo Viejo Mexico: Peñasquito Botswana: Khoemac a u Capital costs: Increased costs to mitigate heat stress experienced by equipment and people could result Operating costs: Increased costs could result due to lower worker productivity or costs associated with mechanical cooling Revenue: Productivity decreases could result in reductions or delays in revenue Revenue: Loss of revenue Dust: Increased warming can increase dust emissions associated with mining activities (e.g., road transport and tailing storage facilities), which could impact local residents Chile: Andacollo Revenue: Production is currently impacted by requirements to manage dust that impacts local residents; meanwhile, increasingly hotter and dryer conditions could increase production disruptions and revenue, while excessive dust generation could result in permit maintenance issues Revenue: Loss or delay in revenue

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 30 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD FINANCIAL RISK STEMMING FROM TRANSITION RISKS The table below summarizes how these transition risks, associated with the Net Zero 2050 and the Delayed Transition climate scenarios, may impact our financial performance for the measurement year 2035; it also provides detailed commentary for each jurisdiction and property. Again, we do not consider our list of risks to be exhaustive, and we expect that our risks will be updated and expanded with time. Potential financial impacts Risks and impacts Jurisdiction and sites Our Operators Our Company Transition risks Carbon pricing: In the absence of low-carbon alternatives, regulatory changes and high prices set for GHG emissions or carbon drive up the implied price for energy All jurisdictions/sites Operating costs: Increased costs due to the application of carbon taxation and reduction in ore reserves and resources due to higher costs Revenue: Loss of revenue Balance sheet: Mineral property impairment Trade restrictions: Metal concentrates produced with a high emissions footprint could become subject to trade restrictions through border adjustment carbon taxation, in which a tax equal to the difference between carbon taxes applied in the exporting country compared to the importing country would be levied Mexico: Peñasquito Botswana: Khoemac a u Canada: Voisey’s Bay U.S.: Robinson Operating costs: Carbon border taxation could result in higher operating costs through the payment of a carbon border tax on metal concentrates or the existence of carbon border taxation in some jurisdictions, either of which could drive up shipping and treatment charges for concentrates that have elevated carbon footprints Revenue: Loss of revenue Permitting approvals for production life extension: Sustained production is contingent on the ability to obtain federal and regional regulatory approvals, while political pressure could change regulations for mine development approvals, making it more difficult to permit future developments All Jurisdictions/sites Revenue: The inability or delay in obtaining permits for mine life extension could result in production loss or delay Revenue: Loss of revenue Balance sheet: Mineral property impairment Proximity to communities: Regulatory programs to quickly decarbonize cause social unrest and disproportionally impact the large, low-income portion of the population, resulting in impacts to supply chain logistics Ghana: Wassa Chile: Andacollo Dominican Republic: Pueblo Viejo Mexico: Peñasquito Botswana: Khoemac a u Revenue: Social stress could potentially manifest as impacts to the road transport of operating supplies and people; this would restrict full operations, which has the potential to impact metal production and profitability – or, alternatively, delays in the transport of metal concentrates to off-takers Revenue: Loss or delay of revenue Royal Gold reputational risk: Operations with high emissions intensity and an inability to effectively reduce intensity could become the focus of pressure from investors, to understand how Royal Gold plans to mitigate the emissions Dominican Republic: Pueblo Viejo No risk Operating costs: Increase due to the purchase of carbon offsets Labor union unrest: Regulatory programs to quickly decarbonize cause social unrest, in response to inflationary cost pressures; this can result in labor unrest and work stoppages to solicit higher wages Chile: Andacollo Mexico: Peñasquito Botswana: Khoemac a u Revenue: Work stoppages could delay revenue Operating costs: Labor unrest could result in higher operating costs Revenue: Delay of revenue

2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 1 10 11 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 1 10 11 31 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices Climate change risk summary Coquimbo, Chile (Andacollo) Northern Nevada (Cortez, others) British Columbia, Canada (Mount Milligan) Zacatecas, Mexico (Peñasquito) Sánchez Ramírez, Dominican Republic (Pueblo Viejo) Ngamiland, Botswana ( Khoemac a u ) Western Region, Ghana (Wassa) Western Australia (Various properties) Mato Grosso, Brazil (Xavantina) Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada (Voisey’s Bay) Actual physical risks Flooding (site) Flooding (transport infrastructure) Wildfires Chronic physical risks Water stress (drought) Water stress (variable precipitation) Heat stress Transition risks Carbon pricing Regulation & incentives Technology Carbon Price Range (2035) –$/tCO 2 e Ontario, Canada (Rainy River) $225–$410 $184–$404 $201–$395 $193–$416 $184–$404 $193–$416 $204–$437 $154–$359 $154–$359 $213–$359 $184–$404 Risks identified through the climate scenario analysis largely relate to physical risks and risks associated with increases in the taxation and regulatory environment, where shadow carbon pricing is used as the best representative of these transition risks. The map below provides an abbreviated summary of physical risks for the Current Policies scenario and a shadow carbon pricing range defined for the Delayed Transition and Net Zero 2050 scenarios for 2035 defined by the NGFS.

32 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices Climate-related opportunities Through our climate analysis, we have identified opportunities relating to climate change. All the identified opportunities could be beneficial regardless of the scenario considered; however, an assessment was made as to which scenarios may produce more opportunity to advance and during which of our three time periods the opportunity would most likely be more beneficial. An assessment was also made with respect to the positive attributes of each opportunity: Financial: It is likely that the project generates a financial rate of return. Reputation: The execution of the project will likely be viewed positively by the market and our shareholders. Scope 3 investment emissions footprint reduction: The project could directly or indirectly reduce the scope 1 and 2 investment emissions of our Operators that are captured in our portfolio’s emissions data. Opportunities are presented at a conceptual level, and detailed analysis could change our view of the potential benefits and impacts. Potential impacts Opportunity windows Opportunity Financial Reputational Scope 3 (investment) footprint reduction Short term (1–3 years) Medium term (5–10 years) Long term (>10 years) Low-carbon technologies are expected to become increasingly viable and advantageous from a cost perspective. The opportunity may exist to finance technology solutions. Net Zero 2050 Net Zero 2050 Delayed Transition Obtain and apply high-quality carbon offsets against the scope 1 and 2 emissions attributed to our stream and royalty interests ? 1 Net Zero 2050 Net Zero 2050 Net Zero 2050 Delayed Transition Financially support renewable energy projects to directly benefit an operation in our portfolio Financially support renewable energy projects that are currently in the planning stage with our Operators All scenarios All scenarios All scenarios Influence Operators Encourage our Operators who have not completed a climate risk assessment to advance on this subject All scenarios Include in new stream agreements a requirement to disclose climate-related risk with reference to the TCFD All scenarios Include in new stream agreements (where commercially practical) the provision of a financial incentive mechanism for reducing GHG emissions against a baseline All scenarios All scenarios Net Zero 2050 Delayed Transition 1 Reflects uncertainty of applicability of potential impact and potential impact applies mainly to mine operator.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 33 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Organizational resilience to climate change impacts Our organization’s climate change resilience is a function of the characteristics of our portfolio, our actions to diligence additions to the portfolio and actions of the Operators of the properties that make up our stream and royalty portfolio. OUR PORTFOLIO RESILIENCE We assess the resilience of our business through our stream and royalty interests that generate our revenue, and the ability to identify and add stream and royalty assets that have characteristics supporting operational resilience under the range of physical and transitional risks identified in our climate scenario analysis. The resilience indicators by which we assess our portfolio include, but are not limited to: • Geographic and asset diversification • Commodity diversification • GHG emissions intensity (individual asset and portfolio) • Distribution of GEO production subject to carbon tax • Jurisdictional water stress • Operator commitment to climate change Our business model provides some insulation from certain financial risks that our Operators face directly. We typically do not have direct exposure to increases in operating and sustaining capital costs, including carbon taxes, which would include costs incurred to manage climate risks and impacts as well as costs associated with transitioning to a low- carbon economy. However, capital and operating cost increases can impact the classification of material as ore or waste, which could impact our revenue through less mineralized material being classified as ore and/or less incentive for Operators to explore and extend production life. A consistent and rigorous due diligence process is our most effective tool to maintain and enhance our portfolio’s resilience to climate change impacts on our business. ASSET AND GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSIFICATION We have more than 40 assets providing revenue. Our largest revenue-generating asset was Mount Milligan, located in Central British Columbia, which generated 29.9% of our 2022 revenue and has a 10-year operating history. The graphic on page 7 illustrates our portfolio’s asset and geographic diversification. All jurisdictions are subject to physical risks, and our geographic diversification ensures that acute climate risk events are not likely to impact multiple sites; additionally, no single chronic risk condition is likely to impact multiple jurisdictions within a select timeframe. GEOGRAPHY ASSETS Revenue 40% Canada 14% U.S. 14% Dominican Republic 9% Mexico 9% Africa 8% Chile 7% Other Revenue 30% Mount Milligan 14% Pueblo Viejo 9% Cortez 8% Andacollo 7% Peñasquito 3% Khoemac a u 29% Other

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 34 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD COMMODITY DIVERSIFICATION 1 Critical Minerals Market Review 2023, International Energy Agency (IEA), page 63. Our revenue is heavily weighted towards gold and silver, while primary gold mines generated 47% of our revenue in 2022; primary copper mines or mines with a significant copper revenue generated 43% of our revenue, and 10% of our revenue was generated from primary base metal mines other than copper mines. The World Gold Council’s 2020 research of the potential impacts of climate change on the gold price stated the following: “ Unlike most other metals, demand is uniquely diverse and not concentrated in any particular sector or geographic region. Furthermore, as a commodity, a culturally significant luxury good and a monetary asset, gold’s value drivers are not simply an expression of the supply/demand balance. This makes it remarkably robust as a store of value, even in the face of extreme conditions and duress in the wider markets and economy.” In an economy focused on energy transformation from fossil fuels, the need for copper, a critical energy transition metal, should increase support for current and future copper mines. In all climate scenarios copper demand associated with clean energy increases per the International Energy Agency (IEA) 1 by 150% to more than 350% by 2050, compared to 2022, depending on the climate scenario selected. We see the metal mix in our portfolio supporting portfolio resilience with respect to transition risks. MINE TYPE OPERATOR GHG EMISSION INTENSITY (SCOPE 1 AND SCOPE 2) Our scope 3 investment emissions in 2022 had a weighted average GHG emission intensity of 0.74 tCO 2 e/Net GEO (i.e., tonnes of CO 2 equivalent per net gold equivalent ounce), which shows a downward trend year-over-year and adds to the downward trend seen over the 5-year period, 2018 through 2022. Analysis of our portfolio’s energy consumption and associated GHG emissions shows that the emissions intensity of the energy associated with our attributable stream and royalty interests has a strong improvement trend with time. However, as these figures are weighted by production, a shift in our revenue or the underlying production from an operation with low emissions to one with high emissions may change our portfolio’s characteristics. Revenue 47% Primary Gold 30% Copper/ Gold 13% Primary Copper 10% Base Metal (other than copper) Approximately 41% of our total scope 3 investment emissions are associated with the Pueblo Viejo operation, which generated 12.4% of our Net GEOs. The remaining 87.6% of our portfolio Net GEOs has a significantly lower weighted average emission intensity of 0.50 tCO 2 e/Net GEO, which puts this portion of our portfolio in the lower third of the gold industry emissions intensity curve, as defined by Skarn Associates. Consequently, the majority of our portfolio is somewhat resilient to transition risks associated with carbon pricing. For more information on our Operator’s emissions performance, please see page 58 of the 2023 Investment Stewardship Report. Nevada Gold Mines , Western 102 power plant

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 35 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD PRODUCTION SUBJECT TO CARBON TAX Mine site economic impacts associated with the application of a carbon tax can be significant, so operations where a carbon tax is already being applied have less transition risk, as the cost associated with carbon taxation is likely already included in economic modeling and mine planning. Three countries containing five of the 11 jurisdictions we have focused on in this report have carbon taxation in place: Canada: Fuel charge rates reflect a carbon pollution price of C$65 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) in 2023 (the price currently reaches C$50 per tonne in 2022), which will rise by C$15 per tonne annually to reach C$170 per tonne in 2030. This is a federal tax but in the case of British Columbia, they administer the program. Chile: Carbon taxation applies to installations emitting 25,000 tCO 2 or more, as well as to those that release more than 100 tonnes of particulate matter into the air each year. The carbon tax rate is USD 5/tCO 2 . Mexico: The carbon tax rate was set at MXN 250 per tCO 2 e. The carbon tax applies to fixed sources and facilities. Although Mexico and Chile impose modest carbon taxes on operations that generated about 17% of our revenue in 2022, Canada imposes the most significant tax, which varies by province but applies to about 40% of our 2022 revenue. DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE IN WATER STRESS JURISDICTIONS We rely on assessments of water stress published by the Water Resources Institute’s Aqueduct™ Water Risk Atlas. Baseline water stress measures the ratio of total water demand to available renewable surface and groundwater supplies. Water demand includes domestic, industrial, irrigation, and livestock uses. Available renewable water supplies include the impact of upstream consumptive water users and large dams on downstream water availability. Higher values indicate more competition among users. In 2022, 25% of our revenue was produced from water basins with water stress classifications of High or Extremely High, while 15% of our revenue was generated from areas classified as Arid/Low water usage. The revenue associated with High, Extremely High and Arid/Low water usage has been relatively constant over the last five years. BASELINE WATER STRESS OPERATOR COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE CHANGE Our climate resilience is closely tied to the performance of our Operators, who generate our revenue, and how they are addressing climate change at the operating level. We observe that 85% of our revenue is generated from assets where the operating company has initiated climate disclosure with reference to the TCFD framework. We look at the statistic as indicating a high degree of climate risk awareness. With respect to emission reduction targets by companies contributing to our 2022 revenue, 46% of our revenue is associated with operating companies that have set targets to be achieved by 2030 or earlier, and 54% of our revenue is associated with companies that have made a formal commitment to net zero GHG emissions by 2050. CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTING 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Commitment to Achieve Net Zero by 2050 Emission Reduction Targets – 2030 Disclosure in line with TCFD Yes No % of Alignment 85% 46% 54% OPERATOR COMMITMENTS Barrick Gold Corporation We have set emissions reduction targets for the short, medium and long term. Our short term and interim target is to reduce our GHG emissions by 15% against our 2018 baseline of 7,541kt carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e). Over the medium term our target is to reduce our scope 1 and 2 emissions by at least 30% by 2030 against the same baseline. Ultimately our long-term vision is to achieve Net-Zero emissions by 2050, while also maintaining a steady production profile. Newmont Corporation We have committed to greenhouse gas emissions targets of a reduction of 32% for scope 1 and 2 emissions (2018 baseline year) and a reduction of 30% for scope 3 by 2030 (2019 baseline year). In addition, we are committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Teck Resources Limited Our goal is to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 across all aspects of our business and activities. Long-term ambitions: • Net-zero scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2050 • Reduce carbon intensity of operations by 33% by 2030 • Net-zero scope 2 emissions by 2025 • Net-zero scope 3 emissions by 2050 Net GEOs 47.2% Low 13.0 % Low- Medium 0.2% Medium- High 2.4% High 22.3% Extremely High 14.9% Arid/Low Water Yes No

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 36 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Risk Management In This Section Identifying and assessing risks Risk assessment timeframes Risk drivers Reforestation of disturbed areas , Mount Milligan, British Columbia

37 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices Identifying and assessing risks DUE DILIGENCE New royalty and stream investment opportunities go through a two-stage review process with respect to overall technical risk. Our assessments of climate risk and climate change risk have evolved over the last several years and generally consist of the following: Phase 1 Review A Phase 1 review typically includes the review of public information and characterization of the project or mine site, which may include the following: • Assessment of current water stress using WRI’s Aqueduct™ Water Risk Atlas • Review of historic precipitation and drought conditions • Assessment of riverine flood risk using Aqueduct™ Floods tool • Assessment of site hazards using the World Bank Think Hazard tool, which provides a regional risk assessment for river flooding, cyclones, water scarcity, extreme heat and wildfires among other non-climate-related natural disasters • For operating mines identification of GHG emissions, emissions intensity, power and fuel types using Skarn’s GHG and Energy databases for gold and copper operations, when applicable • Benchmarking of GHG emissions from proposed opportunities against our current portfolio using emissions intensity to gauge the potential impact on our portfolio of revenue generating projects Phase 2 Review This more detailed review builds on information from the Phase 1 review and may include more analysis in climate risk areas defined in the initial phase of work and may also involve review by external experts. Outcomes from the Phase 2 review vary by opportunity but may include: • Confirmation of GHG emission estimates and an estimate for our portfolio emissions performance with the inclusion of the new opportunity • An independent review and risk assessment of the project’s water supply, which would consider impacts to both the natural environment and local communities • A review of project management’s intentions to mitigate climate-related physical risks and water supply risks, which could be magnified with climate change • A review of the regulatory environment that includes existing and potential regulations associated with GHG emissions and carbon taxation The findings from our progressive two-phase process are summarized by the management team and, in the case of material acquisitions, presented to the Board to support any approval request. ROYAL GOLD DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS These findings provide the content for a presentation of technical due diligence findings to our senior management team, including critical findings from all team members. The process described earlier is graphically represented in the figure below. DUE DILIGENCE DESIGN Critical/unique issues recognized Technical scope defined Team member selection Information review Management presentations Data analysis Site visit Interviews Subject matter expert reports Value drivers & risk workbook ESG checklist PHASE 1 REVIEW PHASE 2 REVIEW DUE DILIGENCE FINDINGS Management presentation

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 38 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD MANAGING RISKS We rely on three internal processes that we use to manage the risks associated with business sustainability and climate change: • Enterprise Risk Management (“ERM”) program • Due diligence process for new opportunities • Performance monitoring process ERM Program: Royal Gold maintains an ERM program aimed at actively identifying, assessing and mitigating headline risks, including those associated with investments in revenue-generating properties over the short, medium and long term and those associated with climate and climate change. The Board is responsible for oversight of enterprise risk management. Each quarter, management reports to the Board on matters relating to enterprise risk. The Board reviews the adequacy of the ERM program on an annual basis and then provides direction to management on appropriate changes to the ERM program that align with the Company’s business strategy. New Opportunity Due Diligence Process: Key findings related to climate risks, water risks and expected emission performance associated with any new business opportunity (and the impact such new business would have on our portfolio emissions performance) are documented and reported to senior management and the Board. Performance Monitoring Process: Annually we review the portfolio with respect to GHG emission performance, energy consumption, and emissions reduction activities, and we track performance over time to gauge change and benchmark our portfolio performance against the gold industry. Quisqueya power plant , Dominican Republic

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 39 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Risk assessment timeframes A changing climate requires us to assess the impact of physical and transitional climate risk over time horizons relevant for decision-makers today. We tied our assessment time periods back to the production lives associated with our Principal Properties, all of which are expected to continue producing into the mid-2030s, and three of which have current production lives beyond 2040. All Principal Properties can potentially extend their production lives through additional exploration or the conversion of existing mineral resources to reserves. Starting in 2023, and taking the asset production life into account, we looked at three time periods in our scenario analysis, as follows. Short-term: The next three years, 2024–2026. Medium-term: The next 3–10 years, represented by 2030. Long-term: Greater than 10 years, represented by 2033–2050, when a target time period is required for impact analysis. For our purposes, 2035 is the time period used to assess long-term physical risks. Mount Milligan Pueblo Viejo Andacollo Peñasquito Cortez Khoemacau 2030 2040 2050 1–3 YEARS 3–10 YEARS >10 YEARS Production life based on ore reserves, arrow indicates extension potential

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 40 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Risk drivers PHYSICAL RISK DRIVERS Physical risk drivers are changes in both weather and climate that impact economies or assets. These risk drivers can be categorized as acute (i.e., related to extreme weather events) or chronic (i.e., associated with gradual shifts in climate). These drivers may appear with a significant time lag, and the frequency and severity of each type of risk may also vary considerably and become increasingly difficult to predict. We chose to evaluate six physical risk drivers against our portfolio, after completing a screening analysis to test the potential relevance of the drivers. We do not view the listed risk drivers as exhaustive but feel they provide a good cross-section for the maturity level of our climate scenario analysis review. Physical risk drivers Description Acute risks Extreme  storms As GHG concentrations increase, the intensity and frequency of storms (e.g., rain, wind or lightning strikes) are expected to increase in certain geographic regions, with the potential to damage assets, impact production and harm human life. In a warmer world, the potential for air to carry moisture increases exponentially, and thus the potential for heavier precipitation also increases. This means that intense events may occur more frequently, which can exacerbate flooding risk. Flooding  (site  or  transport  infrastructure) Climate change is expected to subject different geographic regions to increased damage from flooding, which may lead to the temporary closure of mines, the temporary closure of supporting regional infrastructure (e.g., roadways, rail links, bridges and powerlines) and/or damage to assets. Wildfires Climate change can increase the exposure of land areas to wildfires, depending on a range of factors (e.g., temperature, soil moisture, and the presence of trees, shrubs and other potential fuel). An increase in wildfires could affect our stream and royalty deliveries by interrupting normal operations at our Operators’ sites. Chronic risks Water  stress  –  drought Climate change is expected to subject different geographic regions to water stress in the form of drought, which has the potential to impact production. Water  stress  –  precipitation  variability Climate change is expected to subject different geographic regions to water stress in the form of precipitation variability (both seasonal and interannual), which can impact operational access to both renewable surface and groundwater supplies. This risk is more pronounced for operating sites that rely on surface run-off and collection for their water supply. Heat  stress Climate change is increasing temperatures and can increase the impact of heat stress on labor productivity (i.e., the percentage decrease in efficiency during regular working hours under hot and humid climate conditions, due to the reduced capacity of the human body to perform physical labor). TRANSITION RISK DRIVERS Transition risk drivers are the societal changes arising from a transition to a low-carbon economy. They can arise through changes in public sector policies, innovation, and changes in the affordability of existing technologies (e.g., making renewable energies cheaper or allowing for the removal of atmospheric GHG emissions) or investor and consumer sentiment towards a greener environment. Transition risk drivers are global, although the specific nature of the risk drivers will vary by economy. We have chosen to evaluate three transition risks against our portfolio: carbon pricing, regulation and incentives, and technology. Transition risk drivers Description Carbon  pricing National and sub-national governments are introducing policy instruments that are designed to place a fixed or market-based price on emitted carbon. The expected coverage and price of emitted carbon is expected to increase as policymakers decide to align with more stringent global warming standards. Regulation  and  incentives In addition to carbon pricing, national and sub-national governments are introducing different policy instruments that regulate or incentivize the use of lower-carbon technologies. Such instruments can target building or industry energy efficiency, vehicle emissions intensity, the electrification of transportation and stationary fossil fuel technology, the renewable energy mix in grids or fuel emissions intensity. Technology Transitioning to a net zero economy would require investment flows to be geared towards the development and mass deployment of new technologies and infrastructure. This includes, but is not limited to, renewable energy technologies, carbon capture, low-carbon fuels and low-carbon industrial processes. SHADOW CARBON PRICING Acknowledging NGFS’s use of Shadow Carbon Pricing as a proxy for the cumulative impacts from the listed risk drivers, we used this same approach to represent the combined impacts of all three transition risk drivers.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 41 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD SHADOW CARBON PRICING A key indicator of the level of transition risk is the shadow carbon price, a proxy for government policy intensity and changes in technology and consumer preferences, which is the approach used by NGFS. • Transitioning away from fossil fuels and carbon- intensive production and consumption requires a significant shift towards emissions-neutral alternatives in all sectors. Policymakers can induce this transition by increasing the implicit cost of emissions. As it takes time to develop and deploy alternative technologies, climate policies may lead to higher costs in the interim. 1 NGFS Scenario for central banks and supervisors, November 2023. • In the Integrated Assessment Models used to produce the NGFS scenarios, a higher shadow carbon price is a proxy for more stringent emissions policies and regulations. Models suggest that a shadow carbon price of around $200/tCO 2 would be needed in the next decade to incentivize a transition towards net zero by 2050. Except for Current Policies, shadow carbon prices rise in all scenarios and models. Prices tend to be lower in emerging economies as policy stringency is lower and there tends to be a greater number of low-cost abatement options still available. • The increase in shadow carbon price translates into more ambitious emissions reductions. In other words, in the NGFS scenarios, carbon prices are shadow prices that: 1) represent the marginal cost of abatement of carbon emissions and 2) are a proxy for overall climate policy ambition and effectiveness, accounting for a variety of real-world climate policies (carbon tax, subsidies, environmental standards, etc.) 1 NGFS updated the integrated assessment models that support their climate scenarios in 2023 from Phase III to Phase IV. As ambitious transition efforts at the global level are delayed and levels of emissions remain elevated, the carbon budget runs out, and more rapid and stringent action is needed to achieve the same emission reductions over a shorter period. Since our 2022 scenario analysis (Phase III scenarios), a delay in political action makes it more and more difficult to reach climate targets in an orderly way, leading to higher transition risks in the form of higher shadow carbon prices for the Net Zero 2050 scenario and a shadow carbon price reduction in the Delayed Transition scenario for our climate scenario analysis update. A visualization of shadow carbon pricing associated with each of our three scenarios reflects estimates from the three Integrated Assessment Models used by NGFS and is responsible for the range of outcomes. GLOBAL AVERAGE SHADOW CARBON PRICING NET ZERO 2050 SCENARIO $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Source: NGFS Climate Scenario Database, Phase IV (average of REMIND, GCAM 5.3, MESSAGEix models). (US$/tCO 2 ) DEL AYED TR ANSITION SCENARIO $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (US$/tCO 2 ) CURRENT POLICIES SCENARIO $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (US$/tCO 2 ) NGFS  Phase  IV  Mean  Estimates  (2023) NGFS  Phase  III  Mean  Estimates  (pre-2023) Range  of  Phase  IV  Estimates

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 42 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Metrics and Targets The metrics and targets used to assess and manage relevant climate-related risks and opportunities In This Section Tracking our performance Site visit , Chile

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 43 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Tracking our performance For comprehensive insights into our environmental performance metrics and targets, we encourage readers of this report to refer to Royal Gold’s 2023 Investment Stewardship Report for detailed information about our commitment to carbon neutrality and a thorough breakdown of Operator performance on energy, emissions, water and other metrics. Notably, while our Climate Report will be updated periodically, performance data will be published annually in the ISR. This allows us to streamline the information, make it easily accessible in one consolidated location, and minimize complexity for our stakeholders, contributing to our efforts of transparency. OUR CORPORATE FOOTPRINT Royal Gold’s direct environmental impact is low, with 30 employees across four offices in the United States, Switzerland and Canada. We continue to subsidize and encourage employees to use public transportation for daily commuting. The transition to a hybrid office model, coupled with 14% of our employees working exclusively from home, also reduces in-office emissions broadly and those associated with commuting to work. Two-thirds of our employees are based in our Denver Headquarters, a LEED Gold certified building. We have no corporate scope 1 emissions, which stem from direct fuel combustion. Our scope 2 and 3 corporate emissions are associated with our corporate operations, and are exclusive of our scope 3 investment emissions, which reflect the scope 1 and 2 emissions attributed to the mines over which we hold stream and royalty interests. Since 2020, we have acquired verified carbon credits to offset scope 2 and 3 corporate emissions that we otherwise have been unable to eliminate, thus achieving carbon neutrality in our corporate operations. We are committed to remaining carbon neutral for our corporate operations and will continue to explore ways to reduce our carbon footprint. We will report annually in our ISR the projects where carbon offsets were purchased. ROYAL GOLD CORPORATE SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSIONS 1 2023 2021 2020 Denver, Colorado Toronto, Ontario Lucerne, Switzerland 0 20 40 60 80 100 2022 (tCO 2 e) 86 83 93 90 ROYAL GOLD CORPORATE SCOPE 3 GHG EMISSIONS 2,3 2023 2021 2020 0 80 160 240 320 400 2022 Employee business travel Employee commuting (tCO 2 e) 68 44 406 310 ROYAL GOLD CORPORATE TOTAL SCOPE 2 AND 3 GHG EMISSIONS 2023 2021 2020 0 160 320 480 640 800 2022 (tCO 2 e) 155 127 499 400 ROYAL GOLD CORPORATE ENERGY CONSUMPTION Estimated indirect grid electricity purchased (market-based) 2023 2021 2020 0 80 160 240 320 400 2022 (MWh) 247 250 275 258 1 Our scope 2 corporate emissions are calculated internally and include our Denver, Toronto and Lucerne offices, which cover about 97% of our Company (30/31 employees in 2022). Our Vancouver office, which consists of a single office let in a third-party space, is omitted from the totals as associated energy consumption data are not readily available. Royal Gold uses emissions factors from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s GHG Emissions Calculations Tool to determine scope 2 corporate emissions. 2 Our scope 3 corporate emission calculations include employee business travel; these are provided by a third party, Egencia. Our employee commuting emissions are calculated internally. Egencia uses emissions factors from the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Our scope 3 corporate emissions cover 100% of all Royal Gold employees. 3 Emissions in 2020 and 2021 are low due to limited travel during COVID. Employee  business travel Denver,  Colorado Denver,  Colorado Toronto,  Ontario Toronto,  Ontario Employee  commuting Lucerne,  Switzerland Lucerne,  Switzerland

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 44 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD OUR OPERATORS’ EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE Understanding the GHG emission performance of individual assets and our portfolio of stream and royalty interests is a fundamental building block in understanding our portfolio’s climate impact. GHG emissions at a mine site are driven by the amount of diesel fuel consumed during mining, the amount of electrical energy consumed by the operation, the fuel sources used to generate grid power and the type of ore processing, among other factors. Scope 3 investment emissions are calculated as a proportion attributed to our interest relative to the total site production. A detailed calculation methodology is presented on page 46 . We have used Skarn Associates’ energy and emissions databases for gold and copper mines as our data source for site production, energy consumption and GHG emissions generation. In some cases, where the operator did not disclose energy or emissions information, we have used estimates prepared by Skarn. Using a GHG intensity measurement as a KPI allows us to track performance over time, regardless of changes in the annual production attributable to our stream and royalty interests. Due to the delayed timing of available energy and emissions data from our Operators, we report data and analysis one year in arrears and have presented performance data from 2018 through 2022, inclusive. GHG intensity performance over the five-year period shows GHG emissions intensity has experienced a modest improvement trend, and in 2022, the portfolio average was estimated at 0.74 tCO 2 e/net gold equivalent ounce (“Net GEO”). With an assessment of the scope 1 and 2 corporate GHG emission intensity associated with our stream and royalty interests, which we refer to as our scope 3 investment emissions, we have benchmarked this performance against the gold mining industry. This was developed using a GHG emission database compiled by Skarn Associates, which presents reported energy and emissions information. The figure to the right shows that our stream and royalty interests are in the middle of the third quartile of GHG emission intensity per GEO for the 63 million ounces of gold production represented in the database. For context, the figure to the right also shows the GHG emission intensity quartiles for properties that contribute more than 92% of our 2022 Net GEOs. Our emissions and emissions intensity can change from year to year due to the change in our revenue mix between our revenue generating properties, so modest changes may not be indicative of improvements by our Operators. Also, the conversion of mines that are not primary gold operations, which contributed in excess of 50% of our 2022 revenue, onto a gold industry emissions curve creates some inherent analytical uncertainty. The compilation and benchmarking process allowed us to critically look at the portfolio’s performance and what drives our performance into the mid- third quartile. Our emissions are heavily weighted by the Pueblo Viejo mine, which contributed 41% of our GHG emissions in 2022, while contributing just 12.4% of Net GEOs. The high intensity is due to the need for the site to generate its own power using LNG and having a high energy intensive process to treat the ore. Exclusive of the revenue and emissions from Pueblo Viejo, our portfolio would benchmark approximately in the lower end of the second quartile. The charts on the right illustrate our tracked scope 1 and 2 emissions (our scope 3 investment emissions) estimates for approximately 98% of the Net GEOs generated in the five-year period from 2018 through 2022; scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions intensity; and the gold industry’s scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions intensity relative to Royal Gold’s estimates, respectively. SCOPE 1 AND 2 GHG EMISSIONS ESTIMATES 2018 2019 2020 2021 (tCO 2 e) 2022 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 210,000 227,000 218,000 211,000 196,000 Scope  1 Scope  2 GEO  Production Scope  1  and  2 SCOPE 1 AND 2 GHG EMISSIONS INTENSITY 2018 2019 2020 2021 (tCO 2 e)/Net Gold Equivalent Ounces 2022 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ~99% of Production 0.81 0.85 0.77 0.79 0.74 Scope  1 Scope  2 Scope  1  and  2 SKARN ASSOCIATES SCOPE 1 AND 2 GHG EMISSIONS CURVE FOR GOLD INDUSTRY E0: Scope 1 & 2 (kg/Au oz) Royal Gold Portfolio Estimate – 740 kg CO 2 e/GEO Gold Production 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0.0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Mount Milligan (2nd quartile on copper emissions curve) Andacollo (1st quartile on copper emissions curve) Xavantina Voisey’s Bay Pueblo Viejo Khoemacau (4th quartile on copper emissions curve) Peñasquito South Laverton Wassa Cortez Rainy River Scope  1 Scope  2

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 45 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD OUR OPERATORS’ EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRESS We have not set scope 3 investment emissions targets because we don’t have any control over operations at the properties where we have stream and royalty interests. However, we see a modest downward trend in our scope 3 investment emissions and emissions intensity over the 5-year period due, in part, to actions taken by our Operators to reduce their carbon footprints. The distribution of revenue between assets also impacts the GHG emissions allocated to us. We monitor the projects our Operators complete and have planned for the reduction of GHG emissions at the operations where we hold stream and royalty interests. A description of the projects identified is presented in the graphic. Teck Resources, Barrick and Newmont have disclosed comprehensive actions and plans to reduce emissions at the operations they manage. These three Operators generated about 40% of our Net GEOs in 2022, while operations that generated about 76% of our Net GEOs in 2022 have completed emission reduction projects or have disclosed plans for reduction projects prior to 2030. The figure at the right highlights disclosed projects and the Operators’ estimated annual emission reductions associated with both completed projects and planned projects. Teck’s power purchase agreement at Andacollo, which provided 8.4% of our Net GEOs in 2022, provides 100% renewable power and resulted in a reduction of about 79% in combined scope 1 and 2 emissions for the mine. At Pueblo Viejo, Barrick completed a fuel replacement project that allowed the diesel-fired Quisqueya I power plant to convert from heavy fuel oil to natural gas, supporting a reduction in scope 1 and 2 emissions (from which our scope 3 investment emissions are calculated) by about 13.5% in 2020. Barrick completed a further reduction in emissions by converting its lime kilns from diesel fuel to natural gas, resulting in a further drop of an estimated 6.6% in site emissions, compared to 2019. As a general statement, reduction in scope 2 emissions, which are the emissions associated with grid supplied power, offers the easiest approach to reduce emissions since power purchase agreements can be put in place to supply higher levels of renewable power than the local grid power provider can provide. However, scope 2 emissions are typically the smaller contributor to total emissions and site fossil fuel consumption presents the larger emission source to be mitigated. EMISSION REDUCTION PROJECTS COMPLETED AND PL ANNED BY OPER ATORS OF OUR STREA M AND ROYALT Y INTERESTS 2020 2020 2021 2022 2022 2022 2022 2024 2030+ 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 2024 2025 2025 2030 GHG Emissions (tCO 2 e) Legend Approx. Site Reduction 14% 80% 7% 12% 5% 1% 4% 8% 10% 17% 13% 1% 6% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 10 Emissions Reduction Projects 1 Andacollo – executed life-of-mine renewable power PPA (emissions reduction based on 2019) 2 Pueblo Viejo – conversion of Quisqueya power plant from diesel to natural gas 3 Nevada Gold Mines – executed renewable power PPA 4 Pueblo Viejo – conversion of lime kilns from diesel to natural gas 5 Mount Milligan – replacement of diesel generation with electrical power for remote water management facilities 6 Rainy River – truck haulage fuel efficiency improvement 7 Carosue Dam – install 6.3 MW solar energy project 8 Nevada Gold Mines – construct 200 MW solar energy project 9 Peñasquito – install solar power project or execute PPA for renewable energy 10 Nevada Gold Mines – convert TS power plant from coal to natural gas 11 Voisey’s Bay – construction of 21 MW wind energy project 12 Nevada Gold Mines – execute renewable power PPA 13 Nevada Gold Mines – geothermal energy project GHG emissions reductions are estimates published by the operator of the mine and are annualized. Percentage number associated with each bar indicate scope 1 and 2 emissions reduction as a percentage of the operation’s 2022 total reported emissions. Nevada Gold Mines includes the following operations in which we have royalty interests: Cortez, Leeville, Goldstrike, Twin Creeks. Stream Royalty 

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 46 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Appendices GHG emissions footprint calculation methodology Royal Gold stream and royalty footprint methodology overview Our objective is to define the beneficial interest we receive as a stream or royalty holder in comparison to the total production from a mining operation, and then aggregate our portfolio of assets using a unit of measure that normalizes commodity output and commodity price. In this manner, we can compare asset or portfolio performance over time while setting aside changes in the underlying commodity prices. LEARN MORE Our appendices are available on our website . We use the GEO as the standard unit of measure. We start with the commodity units of which we take delivery (in the case of streams) or the commodity units associated with our royalty payments, and by using a standard set of metal prices, we multiply the commodity units by the standard commodity price for the commodity of interest; this is then divided by the standard gold price, with the result being a GEO value. In the case of metal streams, we pay to the Operator who delivers the metal a predetermined metal price per unit, which is typically a percentage of the metal’s market price at the time of delivery; this is called the cash price. The gold stream for our Mount Milligan property uses a fixed cash price of $435 per ounce versus a percentage of the gold market price. Our beneficial interest is determined after we make our cash price payment to the Operator. Royal Gold’s Net GEOs = ∑ [Metal units x (1 – Fixed cash price percentage) x Standard metal price] Standard gold price We then want to determine the percentage interest we receive of the full operation where the stream or royalty applies. To normalize this calculation, we convert the production from the operation of interest into GEOs, again using the same set of standard metal prices referenced at the bottom of this description. In the case of a property that produces multiple commodities, all commodities are converted to GEOs. Operator’s site production GEOs = ∑ [Metal units x Standard metal price] Standard gold price Having determined both our Net GEOs and the Operator’s site production GEOs, we can then calculate Royal Gold’s percentage of site production: Royal Gold’s percentage of site production = Royal Gold’s Net GEOs Operator’s site production GEOs Assets that produce concentrates that require third-party processing can result in a period of two to six months between the time metals are reported as produced and the time Royal Gold would take delivery. Our calculations have not tried to match this timing. With Royal Gold’s percentage of site production determined, parameters such as energy consumption, GHG emissions and water consumption can then be assessed with respect to the quantity of the specified parameter attributable to us. This approach allows each stream and royalty to be systematically assessed: it allows for a determination of the energy consumption, GHG emissions or water consumption associated with beneficial interest for the portfolio over a set of years and allows us to assess intensity as measured by consumption attributed to Royal Gold divided by our Net GEOs. Standard metal prices Gold: $1,758/oz Nickel: $13,672/t Silver: $20.54/oz Moly: $25,992/t Copper: $6,186/t Cobalt: $31,161/t Lead: $1,826/t Zinc: $2,269/t Although, the standard metal prices may change in the future, we would expect that all reported data would use the revised set of metal prices.

Overview Governance Strategy Risk Management Metrics and Targets Appendices 47 2023 CLIMATE REPORT ROYAL GOLD Legal matters CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This report includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of U.S. federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements are any statements other than statements of historical fact. Forward- looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, and actual results may differ materially from these statements. Forward-looking statements are often identified by words like “will,” “may,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “forecast,” “potential,” “intend,” “continue,” “project,” or negatives of these words or similar expressions. Forward-looking statements include, among others, the following: the potential effects of climate change and related regulation on the Company and the Operators and their projects; actions the Company or the Operators may take in response to climate change and related regulation; expected operating and financial performance of the Operators, including estimates of mineral resources and mineral reserves, production, mine life and mine life extensions; the Company’s liquidity, capital resources, and ability to fund the growth of its business; and future gold prices and prices for other metals. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements include, among others, the following: the actual amount of global warming and the effect of such global warming being different, perhaps significantly, from the Company’s current projections; actions taken by governments and other entities and groups to mitigate climate change and in response to climate change; contractual issues involving our stream or royalty agreements, including as a result of climate change; future exploration and development activities by Operators, and our ability to identify, finance, value and complete acquisitions; increased competition for stream and royalty interests; a lower-price environment for gold, silver, copper or other metals; operating activities or financial performance of properties on which the Company holds stream or royalty interests, including variations between actual and forecasted performance, Operators’ ability to complete projects on schedule and as planned, Operators’ changes to mine plans and mineral reserves and mineral resources (including updated mineral reserve and mineral resource information), liquidity needs, mining and environmental hazards, labor disputes, distribution and supply chain disruptions, permitting and licensing issues, other adverse government or court actions, or operational disruptions; contractual issues involving our stream or royalty agreements, adverse economic and market conditions; and other factors described in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, including under the caption “Risk Factors,” and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Most of these factors are beyond our ability to predict or control. Other unpredictable or unknown factors not discussed in this report could also have material adverse effects on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made. The Company disclaims any obligation to update any forward- looking statements, except as required by law. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements. STATEMENT REGARDING MATERIALITY This report discloses the Company’s GHG emissions, the GHG emissions associated with properties on which the Company holds stream or royalty interests, and certain scenario analyses, transition plans, and activities the Company or Operators may take to mitigate or adapt to climate change. While the Company believes that it is prudent to consider climate-related risks and the potential effects of climate change on the Company, the Company does not consider its GHG emissions or any scenario analyses, transition plans, or activities the Company or Operators may take to mitigate or adapt to climate change to be material to the Company’s business, strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, in light of the time horizons involved and the currently anticipated magnitude of the impact to the Company’s business, strategy, results of operations, or financial condition of climate change. STATEMENT REGARDING THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION Certain information provided in this report has been provided to us by third-party consultants, other third-party sources, or the Operators of the relevant properties or is publicly available information filed by these Operators with applicable securities regulatory bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. Royal Gold has not verified, and is not in a position to verify, and expressly disclaims any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fairness of any such third-party information and refers the reader to the public reports filed by the Operators for information regarding those properties.

1144 15th Street Suite 2500 Denver, Colorado 80202 +1 (303) 573-1660 royalgold.com Concept and Design: worksdesign.com