PLATINUM GROUP METALS LTD

11.6 Sampling Audit Process

The first stage of the audit process started at the drill rigs. At this stage, the quality of the core recovered (recoveries & RQDs) was checked. Other key steps included packing the drill core into core trays, labeling the respective core trays, and handling the core during shipment from drill sites to the exploration camp.

The second stage of the auditing process was performed at the exploration camp where the drill core was logged, sampled, and shipped to the laboratory. The process started with observing how core trays were laid out in preparation for logging and sampling.

The entire sampling workflow listed below was observed.

• Generating Sample Logs.

• Orientating Drill Core in Preparation for Splitting.

• Splitting Process.

• Bagging the Samples into Plastic Bags.

• Labeling of Respective Plastic Bags and Insertion of Standards and Blanks.

• Ticketing of Individual Samples.

• Recording of Individual Sample Weights.

• Bagging Samples into Batches.

• Creating Order Number Requisitions.

• Preparing Relevant Paperwork to Accompany Samples.

• Dispatching Samples.

The third stage of the audit was at the laboratory. The laboratory tour began at the sample receiving area and continued in a logical sequence to the end of the analytical process. Questions regarding quality control procedures, internal pass / fail frequencies, and database related questions were posed to the laboratory manager.

The fourth and last stage of the audit process involved auditing Waterberg JV Resources' database and scrutinizing how assay results are reported and imported into the database. The process of how batch failures are communicated with the laboratory was intensely scrutinized at this stage.

Once an audit was complete, an audit report with recommendations was compiled and forwarded to the Technical Manager, Project Manager, and Database Manager for remedial actions.

Since the inception of the Waterberg Project, two audits were conducted by Barry Smee (Smee Associates) and one audit by the senior exploration team (Maja Herod, Aleck Mkhabela, and Edwin Matiwane).Ad hoc laboratory inspections were also conducted by the Project Manager (Aleck Mkhabela).

The first audit conducted by Barry Smee was from 12-19 July 2013. Most of the issues, accompanied by remedial actions, were identified during this audit, and outlined in a report titled "Results of an Audit of the Setpoint Preparation Laboratory and Full Reviews of Quality Control Data and Field Methods, Waterberg Project, Republic of South Africa (2013)."

Waterberg Technical Report

The following risks were identified.

• The Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) caused concerns with the assay database as no fixed format was imported.

• The recommendation was that the laboratory fix the work order number for all their laboratories. The work order number was to consist of an alpha laboratory location (e.g., MOK for Mokopane), and a number for the year plus a five-digit number for the actual job number (e.g., MOK1300345). This system made it easier to work with the database.

• Plastic bags were used to package milled samples.

• The recommendation was to replace the plastic bags with Kraft paper wire-top sample bags.

• Rejects were not obtained when the entire sample was pulverized, even though the primary samples were big enough to yield rejects.

• The recommendation was to obtain rejects from each sample and store them in a plastic bag, labelled accordingly.

• Only B2000 pulverizer bowls were used by the laboratory. These bowls were not highly effective on smaller samples.

• The recommendation was to obtain B1000 and B500 bowls and use the appropriate bowl to fit the sample weight.

Recommendations from the audit reports were communicated with the laboratory and the exploration team with a mandate to execute.

In November 2014, the Waterberg Project senior exploration team conducted an audit at both the laboratory and exploration site. The objectives of the audit were to check if both the laboratory and exploration site adhered to industry standards and to confirm that recommendations from the initial audit by Barry Smee were implemented. Upon completion of the audit, an internal audit report with recommendations was compiled titled "An Audit of Waterberg Field Sampling Collection Methods and the Setpoint Laboratory."

From 01 to 03 July 2015, Barry Smee visited the Waterberg Project for a follow-up audit. The general sentiment was that there were significant improvements compared to the previous audit.