Q2 2026 Barrick Mining Corp Earnings Call

August 10, 2026

Operator: Q2 2026 results presentation. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. As a reminder, this event is being recorded, and a replay will be available on Barrick's website later today. I will now turn the call over to Emily Chieng, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: 2026 results presentation. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. As a reminder, this event is being recorded, and a replay will be available on Barrick's website later today.

Speaker #1: I will now turn a call over to Emily Cheng, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Speaker #2: Thank you, and good morning, everyone. We hope you've had an opportunity to review the press releases issued before the markets opened this morning. The presentation deck we'll review is also available for download on our website.

Emily Chieng: Thank you, and good morning, everyone. We hope you've had an opportunity to review the press releases issued before the markets opened this morning. The presentation deck we'll review is also available to download on our website. Presenting our results today are Mark Hill, Barrick's President and CEO, and Helen Cai, Senior EVP and CFO. Other members of Barrick's management team will be available after our prepared remarks for Q&A. Before we begin, please note that there will be forward-looking statements. This slide includes a summary of the significant risks and factors that could affect Barrick's future performance and our ability to deliver on those forward-looking statements. This material is also available on our website. With that, I'll turn it over to Mark.

Speaker #2: Presenting our results today are Mark Hill, Barrick's President and CEO, and Helen Kai, Senior EVP and CFO. Other members of Barrick's management team will be available after our prepared remarks for Q&A.

Speaker #2: Before we begin, please note that there will be forward-looking statements. This slide includes a summary of the significant risks and factors that could affect BARRICK's future performance and our ability to deliver on those forward-looking statements.

Speaker #2: This material is also available on our website. With that, I'll turn it over to Mark.

Speaker #3: All right, okay, thanks, Emily, and good morning, everyone. So, for those who don't know Emily, she is our new Vice President of Investor Relations and joins us from US Steel.

Mark Hill: All right. Thanks, Emily, and good morning, everyone. For those who don't know Emily, she is our new Vice President of Investor Relations and joins us from United States Steel Corporation. Before we share our full quarterly results, I want to begin with the agreement with Newmont we announced today. Actually, I want to go off script straight away to make the lawyers nervous here. I want to clarify a few misconceptions here. Firstly, the total value of that package is approximately $4 billion. Obviously it includes the proportion of Four Mile, but it also includes contribution of Newmont's properties, Mike and Fiberline, which add up, I think it's around 6.4 million ounces as well. It is also the cost of resolving historical disputes and litigation between the joint venture partners.

Speaker #3: So, before we share our full quarterly results, I want to begin with the agreement with Newmont we announced today. And actually, I want to go off script straight away to make the noise the lawyers nervous here.

Speaker #3: So, I want to clarify a few misconceptions here. So, firstly, the total value of the package is approximately $4 billion. So, obviously, it includes the proportion of formal, but it also includes contribution of Newmont's properties, Mark, and Fiberline, which I think it's around $6.4 million ounces as well.

Speaker #3: It is also the cost of resolving historical disputes and litigation between the joint venture partners. And it also reduces the friction costs of the planned IPO, which will unlock even greater value for the shareholders beyond the cash proceeds from the transaction.

Mark Hill: It also reduces the friction costs of the planned IPO, which will unlock even greater value for the shareholders beyond the cash proceeds from the transaction. As we've said, they will be largely returned to the shareholders. Moving on, we've reached this agreement after four months of negotiations, so it now enables us to focus on delivering value through safely and consistently producing ounces. Our interests now are completely aligned as joint venture partners, which is critical. I did want to actually thank our counterparts at Newmont, Natascha and her team, and of course everyone on the Barrick team, for the enormous amount of effort and work that's gone into this over the last four months to reach this agreement.

Speaker #3: And as we've said, they will be largely returned to the shareholders. So, moving on, we've reached this agreement after 4 months of negotiations. So, it now enables us to focus on delivering value through safely and consistently producing ounces.

Speaker #3: And our interest now are completely aligned as joint venture partners, which is critical. And I did want to actually thank our counterparts at Newmont, Natasha and her team, and of course everyone on the BARRICK team, for the enormous amount of effort and work that's gone into this over the last 4 months to reach this agreement.

Mark Hill: Now, before I get into the results, there is also a couple of other things I would like to highlight, which I think are the key strengths that have come out of Barrick over the last nine months. First, our leadership team. Over the last 10 months, we have improved the operational performance across the entire business. That is thanks to the strength of our operating site teams, to our GMs and everyone right down through to the mining front. We have also strengthened our relationship with Newmont, as we just said, positioning us well to grow and develop NGM further, which is also critical. Second, with the IPO, we are building the only major American pure gold company with high quality, long life assets. This is exactly what investors, including some of the world's fastest-growing source of capital, are looking for.

Speaker #3: So, before I get into the results, there are also a couple of other things I would like to highlight, which I think are the key strengths that have come out of Barrick over the last nine months.

Speaker #3: So, first, our leadership team. So, over the last 10 months, we've improved the operational performance across the entire business. And that's the thing, thanks to the strength of our operating site teams, right, to our GMs and everyone right down through to the mining front.

Speaker #3: So, we've also strengthened our relationship with Newmont, as we just said, positioning us well to grow and develop in GM further, which is also critical.

Speaker #3: Second, with the IPO, we're building the only major American pure gold company with high quality, long life assets that is exactly what investors including some of the world's fastest growing source of capital are looking for.

Speaker #3: And third, outside of North America, the rest of the world portfolio, which has a significant growth profile, also has a distinctive advantage in our ability to work with our Chinese partners, including as you know, a joint mine ownership, and co-investment.

Mark Hill: Third, outside of North America, the rest of the world portfolio, which has a significant growth profile, also has a distinctive advantage in our ability to work with our Chinese partners, including, as you know, our joint mine ownership and co-investment. This enables us greater efficiency and supply chain strength, which has helped us control our cost, and partnerships that improve outcomes and reduce our risk. With this context, let me turn to our results for the quarter. As I said, we have had our third quarter in a row with excellent operating and financial results. We delivered on all four of our priorities for the year, the same priorities outlined at the start of the year. We continue to improve our safety performance. I will get to that a bit later, but there is obviously still more work to be done there.

Speaker #3: And this enables us greater efficiency and supply chain strength, which has helped us control effort. And partnerships have improved outcomes and reduced our risk.

Speaker #3: So, with this context, let me turn to our results for the quarter. Those are so, we've had our third quarter in a row with excellent operating and financial results.

Speaker #3: We delivered on all 4 of our priorities for the year, the same priorities outlined at the start of the year. We continue to improve our safety performance.

Speaker #3: I'll get to that a bit later, but there's obviously still more work to be done there. We delivered our gold production above guidance and met our cost guidance.

Mark Hill: We delivered our gold production above guidance and met our cost guidance. We advanced our growth projects, Four Mile, Lumwana and the PV expansion, which remain on time and on budget. It is not often you hear that in the mining industry. We continue to review Reko Diq and commence the flow donor development on 1 July, as previously disclosed. Our delivering on production and meeting our cost guidance also allowed us to deliver strong financial results with Helen, we will discuss a bit later. Finally, we achieved major milestones in the preparation of the IPO of our North American gold assets, which is on track to be completed by the end of the year. Let me move to safety, which is still our number one priority. Our goal is that everyone obviously goes home safe and healthy every day.

Speaker #3: We advanced our growth projects, formal and minor, and the PV expansion, which remained on time and on budget. It's not often you hear that in the mining industry.

Speaker #3: We continue to review RECO DIC and commence the flow donor development on the 1st of July, as previously disclosed. And our delivering on production and meeting our cost guidance also allowed us to deliver strong financial results with talent that will discuss a bit later.

Speaker #3: And finally, we achieved major milestones in the preparation of the IPO of our North American gold exit. We're on track, which is on track to be completed by the end of the year.

Speaker #3: So, let me move to safety, which is still our number 1 priority. And our goal is that everyone obviously goes home safe and healthy every day.

Speaker #3: So, we saw a reduction quarter on quarter in our frequency rate between that from 0.92 to 0.77, but disappointingly, we still have 6 LTIs.

Mark Hill: We saw a reduction quarter on quarter in our frequency rate from 0.92 to 0.77. But disappointingly, we still have six LTRs. There is still a lot of work to do. It is completely unacceptable and we need to focus on our safety until we get to our target of zero harm. All of our leaders, all the way up to the executive committee, including myself, are spending more time in the field and at the mine site. They are doing more critical control verifications and fixing more risks on the spot. On top of that, we have also invested over $90 million this year in technology to improve safety. This includes obviously our automation of mining equipment right down to vehicle dash cams, safety reporting software and AI analytics. We are also working hard to engineer out as many safety hazards as possible.

Speaker #3: So, there's still a lot of work to do. It's completely unacceptable, and we need to focus on our safety until we reach our target of zero harm.

Speaker #3: So, all of our leaders, up to the executive committee, including myself, are spending more time in the field and at the mine site. They're conducting more critical control verifications and addressing more risks on the spot.

Speaker #3: On top of that, we've also invested over $90 million this year in technology to improve safety. So, this includes obviously our automation of mining equipment, right down to vehicle dashcams, safety reporting software, and AI analytics.

Speaker #3: And we're also working hard to engineer our as many safety hazards as possible. So, turning to our Q2 highlights, actually, before I start on the Q2 highlights, one other thing I'd like to clarify is our earnings with 82 cents adjusted earnings, 82 cents per share.

Mark Hill: Turning to our Q2 highlights. Actually, before I start on the Q2 highlights, one other thing I would like to clarify is our earnings, with adjusted earnings $0.82 per share, is in line with the Bloomberg consensus on that. There is some media out there this morning says it is not, that we missed, but I am not sure what the source of that is. Barrick produced 796,000 ounces of gold in the quarter, which was 3% above guidance and 11% over Q1. The main drivers of that were we progressed the ramp-up of Loulo and Cortez ahead of schedule. PV ramped up faster than expected after the maintenance shutdown in Q1. We mined record tons underground at Cortez and continued the ramp-up at Goldrush. On the copper side, we produced 56,000 tonnes. We managed costs well, and our gold costs, as I said, were within guide.

Speaker #3: These are in line with the Bloomberg consensus. I'm not—there's some leader out there this morning. It's not that we missed, but I'm not sure what the source of that is.

Speaker #3: Barrick produced 900,796 ounces of gold in the quarter, which was 3% above guidance and 11% over Q1. The main drivers of that were we progressed the ramp-up of Blue Luke and Coda ahead of schedule.

Speaker #3: PV ramped up faster than expected after the maintenance shutdown in Q1. We made record tons underground at Cortez and continued the ramp-up of Goldrush.

Speaker #3: On the copper side, we produced 56,000 tons. We managed costs well and our gold costs, as I said, were within guidance. Our earnings nearly doubled year over year, and we more than doubled quarterly shareholder return to 1.5 billion dollars.

Mark Hill: Our earnings nearly doubled year-over-year, and we more than doubled quarterly shareholder return to $1.5 billion. The strong performance for Q2 is obviously across all of our regions. North America continued to anchor our world-class portfolio. NGM and PV both registered year-over-year revenue growth. Together, they accounted for 53% of our total attributable adjusted EBITDA at a margin of 61%. Our other regions also delivered strong gold production, with meaningful attributable EBITDA at margins of 59%. Copper continued to perform well and delivered comparable margins to our gold business. Moving on to growth. As I said, our growth projects advanced on schedule during the quarter. At Four Mile, we ramped up the drilling to 20 active rigs, and we plan to complete the PFS by the end of 2028.

Speaker #3: And the strong performance for Q2 is obviously across all of our regions. So, North America continued to anchor our world-class portfolio. NGM and PV both registered year over year, revenue growth.

Speaker #3: Together, they accounted for 53% of our total attributable adjusted EBITDA, at a margin of 61%. Our other regions also delivered strong gold production, with meaningful attributable EBITDA at margins of 59%.

Speaker #3: Copper continued to perform well and delivered comparable margins to our gold division. So, moving on to growth, as I said, our growth projects advanced on schedule during the quarter.

Speaker #3: So, formal, we ramped up to ramped up the drilling to 20 active rigs, and we plan to complete the PFS by the end of 2029.

Speaker #3: At La Maina, we made good progress on the mill expansion, which will double the copper production. We expect the project's 2026 capex to come in at the lower end of guidance, and the project remains on budget.

Mark Hill: At Lumwana, we made good progress on the mill expansion, which will double the copper production. We expect the project's 2026 CapEx to come in at the lower end of guidance, and the project remains on budget. We are on track to produce our first copper from the expansion by the end of Q1 in 2028. The PV expansion also advanced on schedule. We have made progress on permitting and construction across the tailings facility, haul roads, and water treatment plant. We are also very pleased to report that we now have 90% of resettlement packages being accepted. We continue to review Reko Diq, as previously disclosed, and we have decided we will not start building the plant this year, so we have reduced our expected 2026 attributable CapEx. It was $600 to $700 million and is now $450 to $500 million.

Speaker #3: We're on track to produce our first copper from the expansion by the end of Q1 in 2028. The PV expansion also advanced on schedule.

Speaker #3: We've made progress on firming and construction across the tailings facility, ball roads, and the mortar treatment plant. We're also very pleased to report that we now have 90% of resettlement packages being accepted.

Speaker #3: We continue to review RECO DIC, as previously disclosed, and we've decided we won't start building the plant this year. So, we've reduced our expected 2026 attributable capex.

Speaker #3: It was $600 to $700 million, and is now $450 to $500 million. So, the lower spend on La Maina and RECO DIC has reduced group guidance for 2026 total attributable capex to $3.8 to $4.2 billion.

Mark Hill: The lower spend on the Lumwana and Reko Diq has reduced our group guidance for 2026 total attributable CapEx to $3.8 billion to $4.2 billion. Back to the IPO of our North American assets. As I said, this entity will be a high-quality, pure-gold play company, which assets are located exclusively in low-risk jurisdictions. What I am pleased to share is that the board has selected me to lead the new company as a CEO on launch. We have completed all operating and separation agreements between Barrick and the new company, and we remain on track to complete the IPO by the end of the year. We expect the vast majority of net proceeds raised to be returned to shareholders. I know several people have asked me in the past. I will now turn it over to Helen Cai, our CFO, who will review our financial performance.

Speaker #3: So, back to the IPO of our North American assets. As I said, this entity will be a high-quality, pure-play gold company, with assets located exclusively in low-risk jurisdictions.

Speaker #3: And what I'm pleased to share is that the board has selected me to lead the new company as a CEO on launch. We've completed all operating and separation agreements between BARRICK and the new company.

Speaker #3: And we remain on track to complete the IPO by the end of the year, and we expect the vast majority of net proceeds raised to be returned to shareholders.

Speaker #3: I know several people have asked me in the past, so I'll now turn it over to Helen Kai, our CFO, who will review our financial performance.

Speaker #2: Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. Q2 marked the third consecutive quarter of strong production, past performance, and financial results. Net earnings were $1.2 billion, a 50% increase year over year.

Helen Cai: Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. Q2 marked the third consecutive quarter of strong production, cost performance, and financial results. Net earnings were $1.2 billion, a 50% increase year-over-year. Adjusted net earnings was $1.36 billion, which equates to adjusted EPS of $0.82, in line with Bloomberg consensus. Attributable adjusted EBITDA of $2.5 billion was up 51% year-over-year, with a 59% margin. On a cash flow basis, the second quarter is typically our lowest each year for free cash flow due to the timing of our annual tax and interest payment. This quarter, we also incurred a one-time $400 million payment related to Loulo and Cortez. Combined, these led to a 33% decline in year-over-year attributable free cash flow. Excluding this, attributable free cash flow for the quarter would have been over 60% higher year-over-year.

Speaker #2: Adjusted net earnings was $1.36 billion, which equates to adjusted EPS of $0.82, in line with Bloomberg consensus. Attributable adjusted EBITDA of $2.4 to $2.5 billion was up 51% year over year, with a 59% margin.

Speaker #2: On a cash flow basis, the second quarter is typically our lowest each year for free cash flow. Due to the timing of our annual tax and interest payments, this quarter we also incurred a one-time $200 million payment related to Blue Luke and COTO.

Speaker #2: Combined, these led to a 33% decline in year-over-year attributable free cash flow. Excluding this, attributable free cash flow for the quarter would have been over 60% higher year-over-year.

Speaker #2: Year to date, attributable free cash flow has been $1.4 billion, more than double the same period last year. Turning to the operations, gold production increased 11% quarter over quarter, and exceeded guidance.

Helen Cai: Year to date, attributable free cash flow has been $1.4 billion, more than double the same period last year. Turning to the operations, gold production increased 11% quarter-over-quarter and exceeded guidance. We continue to operate within our cost guidance, reflecting an acute focus on operational efficiencies to offset supply pressures. We closed Q2 with a healthy $1.2 billion of net cash on the balance sheet, giving us flexibility to continue investing in our highest return opportunities and returning capital to shareholders. Turning to our capital allocation framework, we have three priorities. First, managing the balance sheet with discipline. Second, investing in our assets to drive earnings accretive growth. Third, returning capital to shareholders. Our framework is designed to be sustainable through the cycle.

Speaker #2: We continue to operate within our cost guidance, reflecting an acute focus on operational efficiencies to offset steel price pressures. We closed Q2 with a healthy $1.2 billion of net cash on the balance sheet, leaving us flexibility to continue investing in our highest return opportunities and returning capital to shareholders.

Speaker #2: Turning to our capital allocation framework, we have three priorities: first, managing the balance sheet with discipline; second, investing our assets to drive earnings and accrued growth.

Speaker #2: And third, returning capital to shareholders. Our framework is designed to be sustainable through the cycle. On the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with meaningful access to liquidity, an enduring $3 billion revolving credit facility, and no meaningful debt due until 2033.

Helen Cai: On the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with meaningful access to liquidity and undrawn $3 billion revolving credit facility and no meaningful debt due until 2033. Turning to our portfolio, Lumwana and Gounkoto are two clear examples where we are strategically deploying capital into organic opportunities that we believe will generate superior returns. More broadly, we intend to identify similar earnings accretive opportunities to strengthen our growth profile while remaining disciplined in how and when we deploy capital. This is not about growth for the sake of it. It is about creating value over time with a suite of assets that has extraordinary growth potential. Finally, we are executing against our capital returns policy. Our dividend policy provides for a quarterly base dividend of $0.175 per share, with an additional performance top-up at year-end to target a total payout of 50% of attributable free cash flow.

Speaker #2: Turning to our portfolio, La Maina and Formal are two clear examples where we are strategically deploying capital into organic opportunities that we believe will generate superior returns.

Speaker #2: More broadly, we intend to identify similar earnings-accretive opportunities to strengthen our growth profile, while remaining disciplined in how and when we deploy capital.

Speaker #2: This is not about growth for the sake of it. It is about creating value over time with a suite of assets that has extraordinary growth potential.

Speaker #2: And finally, we are executing against our capital returns policy. Our dividend policy provides for a quarterly base dividend of 17.5 cents per share, with an additional performance top-up at year-end to target a total payout of 50% of attributable free cash flow.

Speaker #2: We also completed 1.2 billion dollars of share repurchases this quarter. Of the $3 billion authorization that was announced last quarter. In the three quarters, since new leadership began, in October 2025, BARRICK has returned $3 billion in dividends and buybacks to shareholders.

Helen Cai: We also completed $1.2 billion of share repurchases this quarter, of the $3 billion authorization that was announced last quarter. In the three quarters since new leadership began in October 2025, Barrick has returned $3 billion in dividends and buybacks to shareholders, more than double the prior corresponding period. We expect a careful execution of our capital allocation strategy to drive further shareholder returns. In summary, our capital allocation framework is disciplined, flexible, and designed to work throughout the cycle. It supports reinvestment in the business, advances growth, protects the balance sheet, and creates a clear pathway for returning excess cash to shareholders. With that, I will turn the call back over to Mark.

Speaker #2: More than double the prior corresponding period. We expect a careful execution of our capital allocation strategy to drive further shareholder returns. In summary, our capital allocation framework is disciplined, flexible, and designed to work throughout the cycle.

Speaker #2: It supports reinvestment in the business, advances growth, protects the balance sheet, and creates a clear pathway for returning excess cash to shareholders. With that, I will turn the call back over to Mark.

Speaker #3: Okay. Thank you, Helen. So, just on guidance, so our 2026 production and cost consolidation remain unchanged. So, for the third quarter, we expect gold production to be higher than Q2, consistent with that plan.

Mark Hill: Okay. Thank you, Helen Cai. So on guidance, our 2026 production and cost guidance remain unchanged. For Q3, we expect gold production to be higher than Q2, consistent with our plan, and we expect even higher production in Q4. Copper production should also increase in H2 of the year relative to H1. To say it again, since October 2025, we have consistently delivered against our strategic priorities and set a new standard of operational performance. Again, I would like to congratulate our GMs and our people on the site. We continue to focus on controlling costs, capital intensity, and productivity. Based on what we see today, we remain confident in our ability to deliver on our full-year commitment for 2026. Just a couple of things to conclude.

Speaker #3: And we expect even higher production in the fourth quarter. Copper production should also increase in the second half of the year relative to the first half.

Speaker #3: So, to say it again, since October 2025, we have consistently delivered against our strategic priorities and set a new standard of operational performance.

Speaker #3: And again, I would like to congratulate GMs and our people on the site. We continue to focus on controlling costs, capital intensity, and productivity, and based on what we see today, we remain confident in our ability to deliver on our full-year commitment for 2026.

Speaker #3: So, just to a couple of things to conclude. So, obviously, again, I'm going to finish with the most important thing, which is safety and, as I said, even though we've seen significant improvements, everyone is still focused on making sure every employee goes home safe every day.

Mark Hill: Again, I am going to finish with the most important thing, which is safety. As I said, even though we have seen significant improvements, everyone is still focused on making sure every employee goes home safe every day. We have improved our operational consistency, which is what I said, and we have delivered on our guidance again. As I said before, we have delivered on all our projects. They are on time and on budget. I will say again, I am not sure how many times we hear that anymore. We have advanced our North American IPO on Jadegold well. We are basically on track to execute against all the core priorities that we set at the start of the year. So again, I want to say, and of course, we have transformed this relationship with Newmont, which allows it to get full value and expand in NGM.

Speaker #3: We have improved our operational consistency, which is what I said, and we've delivered on our guidance again. And as I said before, we've delivered on all our projects that are on time and on budget, and I'll say again, I'm not sure how many times you hear that in the morning.

Speaker #3: And we have advanced our North American ITO in general as well. So, we're basically on track to execute against all four priorities that we set at the start of the year.

Speaker #3: And so, again, I want to say, and of course, we've transformed this relationship with Newmont, which allows us to get full value and expand NGM.

Speaker #3: So, with that, I'll hand it back to the moderator for Q&A. Q&A—thank you.

Mark Hill: With that, I will hand it back to the moderator for Q&A. Thank you.

Speaker #1: Thank you. For the Q&A session, we'll use the raise hand feature in Zoom. If you'd like to ask a question, click on the Raise Hand button at the bottom of your screen once prompted.

Operator: Thank you. For the Q&A session, we will use the raise hand feature in Zoom. If you would like to ask a question, click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. Once prompted, please unmute yourself and go ahead. We will now pause for a moment to assemble the queue. Our first question comes from Josh Folsom with RBC. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #1: Please unmute yourself and go ahead. We'll now pause for a moment to assemble the queue. Our first question comes from Josh Wolfson with RBC.

Speaker #1: Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #3: Okay, thank you very much, operator. And thank you, Mark, for those introductory comments and some of the numbers that were provided. I'm wondering if you can maybe break down more of the information behind the different values that would have been attributed to the agreement components.

Josh Folsom: Yeah. Thank you very much, operator. Thank you, Mark, for those introductory comments, and some of the numbers that were provided. I am wondering if you can maybe break down more of the information behind the different values that would have been attributed to the agreement components. I guess, what would have been Mike and Fiberline within that USD 1.95 billion? Then perhaps what the adjustments would have been to the prior disputes. Thank you.

Josh Wolfson: Yeah. Thank you very much, operator. Thank you, Mark, for those introductory comments, and some of the numbers that were provided. I am wondering if you can maybe break down more of the information behind the different values that would have been attributed to the agreement components. I guess, what would have been Mike and Fiberline within that $1.95 billion? Then perhaps what the adjustments would have been to the prior disputes. Thank you.

Speaker #3: So, I guess, what would have been Mike and Fiberline within that 1.95 billion, and then perhaps with the adjustments that would have been to the prior disputes.

Speaker #3: Thank you.

Speaker #4: Okay. So, Josh, just to be clear, I'm not going to break it down. On the prior disputes, I mean, I can't give a number on that.

Mark Hill: Okay. Josh, just to be clear, I am not going to break it down. On the prior disputes, I cannot give a number on that. We would have had to go through a process to actually get to that number. We just got to where we are. Then on the structural changes, now that we have this agreement done, we are actually going to go away and optimize this structure for the IPO. As you can imagine, that is a bit of a work in process. But the overall value that we had on the table near the end of this discussion was about USD 14 billion. Just one other thing, Josh. The thing I want to highlight is, since I started this job, NGM has a lot of opportunity. You know the assets well, and I am sure you agree with that.

Speaker #4: We would have had to go through a process to actually get to that number, so we just got to where we are. And then on the structural changes—now that we have this agreement done—we're actually going to go away and optimize this structure for the IPO.

Speaker #4: So, as you can imagine, that's a bit of a work in process; that's been so, but the overall value that we had on the table at the end of this discussion was about $4 billion, as I highlighted.

Speaker #4: And just one other thing, Josh. The thing I want to highlight is, since I started this job, NGM has a lot of opportunity. I mean, you know the assets well, and I'm sure you agree with that.

Speaker #4: There's been no increase in processing capacity there for years. I mean, we're dealing with 25-year-old infrastructure. And then we have something like Fourmile that comes in, which is a world-class asset.

Mark Hill: There has been no increase in processing capacity there for years. We are dealing with 25-year-old infrastructure, and then we have something like Four Mile that comes in, which is a world-class asset. The answer is that we are just going to feed that through the current infrastructure and delay the other ounces. Which anywhere else in the world, if you found that number of ounces, you would be wanting to bring that in early. My discussions with Natasha and Newmont right from word go was, how do we get this together so we can optimize NGM? By optimize, I want to look at increasing processing capacity. I want to stop trucking ore all over the state.

Speaker #4: And the answer is that we're just going to feed that through the current infrastructure and delay the other rounds, which, anywhere else in the world, if you found that number of ounces, you would be wanting to bring that in early.

Speaker #4: So, my discussions with Natasha and Newmont right from the word go were: How do we get this together so we can optimize NGM? And by 'optimize,' I mean looking at increasing processing capacity and stopping the trucking all over the state.

Speaker #4: And the only way I can do that is if we combine all these assets now and work together to see if we can justify a roaster or an autoclave, and what we need to build—what infrastructure we need at Cortez to process Fourmile and Goldrush, get our cost structure in place, and increase our overall ounces.

Mark Hill: The only way I can do that is if we combine all these assets now and work together to see if we can justify a roaster or an autoclave and what we need to build, what infrastructure we need at Cortez, to process Four Mile and Gold Rush, get our cost structure in place, and increase our overall ounces. So where we have landed now, at least we are in a position, in my view, to add a lot of value very quickly without getting into these disputes about allocation of resources. Obviously, Josh, there will be a lot of synergies as well, because we are just going to use the same team. We are going to combine them all together, all the same equipment, and we can advance this a lot quicker. That was obviously my ultimate goal.

Speaker #4: So, where we've landed now—at least we're in a position, in my view, to add a lot of value very quickly, without getting into these disputes.

Speaker #4: About allocation of resources. And obviously, Josh, there'll be a lot of synergies as well because we're just going to use the same team. We're going to combine them all together, all the same equipment, and we can advance this a lot quicker.

Speaker #4: And that was, obviously, my ultimate goal.

Speaker #3: Great. Thank you for that detail. Just a follow-up question. With this resolution now completed, is the company considering a different structure in the IPO versus the 10, 15 percent minority that was historically reviewed and could you go larger?

Josh Folsom: Great. Thank you for that detail. Just a follow-up question. With this resolution now completed, is the company considering a different structure in the IPO versus the 10%, 15% minority that was historically reviewed? Could you go larger? If the company went larger, under what circumstances would there be a shareholder vote?

Josh Wolfson: Great. Thank you for that detail. Just a follow-up question. With this resolution now completed, is the company considering a different structure in the IPO versus the 10%, 15% minority that was historically reviewed? Could you go larger? If the company went larger, under what circumstances would there be a shareholder vote?

Speaker #3: And if the company got larger, under what circumstances would there be a shareholder vote?

Mark Hill: No, Josh, it will still stay at 10%. I do not see any of that changing, just the way the company is structured. Anyone correct me if that is not-

Speaker #4: Josh, it'll still stay at 10 percent. I don't see any adventure. Just the way the company is structured. Anyone correct me.

Speaker #3: Yeah, Josh.

Speaker #5: Sorry, it's George speaking. That's exactly it. I think it's just a matter of looking at the structures that we started looking at right at the beginning, comparing them to the current structure, because as Mark said, there's friction costs within there.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): Yeah. Sorry, it is George speaking. Just exactly it. I think it is just a matter of looking at the structures that we started looking at right at the beginning, comparing it to the current structure, because as Mark said, there is friction costs within there. Also look at where it is domiciled, et cetera. So there are all these things that we need to go back and look at now that we have the agreement with Newmont. Again, as Mark said, that is where the value comes as well. We have this flexibility and optionality.

George Joannou: Yeah. Sorry, it is George speaking. Just exactly it. I think it is just a matter of looking at the structures that we started looking at right at the beginning, comparing it to the current structure, because as Mark said, there is friction costs within there. Also look at where it is domiciled, et cetera. So there are all these things that we need to go back and look at now that we have the agreement with Newmont. Again, as Mark said, that is where the value comes as well. We have this flexibility and optionality.

Speaker #5: You can also look at where it's domiciled, etc. So, there's all these things that we need to go back and look at now that we have the agreement with Newmont.

Speaker #5: And again, as Mark said, that's where the value comes as well. We have this flexibility and optionality.

Speaker #3: Great. Thank you very much.

Josh Folsom: Great. Thank you very much.

Josh Wolfson: Great. Thank you very much.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Josh.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Josh.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Tanya Yakushane. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #6: Good morning. Can you hear me?

Tanya Jakusconek: Good morning. Can you hear me?

Speaker #4: I can hear you, Tanya. How are you?

Mark Hill: I can hear you, Tanya. How are you?

Tanya Jakusconek: How are you? Houston, we have made contact. This is awesome. Congratulations on your new role, Mark.

Speaker #6: How are you? Houston, we've made contact. This is awesome. Congratulations on your new role.

Speaker #4: Thanks very much.

Mark Hill: Thanks very much.

Speaker #6: Let's do questions, if I could. The first one is just coming back to Josh's question. Should we be thinking, Mark, that it was $4 billion of the Newmont assets, plus disputes, plus the $2 billion that is the top-up, for a total of $6 billion?

Tanya Jakusconek: Just a few questions, if I could. The first one is just coming back to Josh's question. Should we be thinking, Mark, that it was USD 4 billion of the Newmont math of plus dispute plus the USD 2 billion that is the top-up for a total of USD 6 billion? Is that how I should be thinking about the price paid?

Tanya Jakusconek: Just a few questions, if I could. The first one is just coming back to Josh's question. Should we be thinking, Mark, that it was $4 billion of the Newmont math of plus dispute plus the $2 billion that is the top-up for a total of $6 billion? Is that how I should be thinking about the price paid?

Speaker #6: Is that how I should be thinking about the price paid?

Mark Hill: No, Tanya, it is USD 4 billion total paid. That is how you should look at it.

Mark Hill: No, Tanya, it is $4 billion total paid. That is how you should look at it.

Speaker #4: No, Tanya, it's $4 billion total taxation.

Speaker #6: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you for that. And should I be thinking about the cash that Newmont is paying for this? Is this going to be part of the cash coming into the IPO, or would this $2 billion be cash that is going to be potentially used for share buybacks and/or the top-up dividend at the end of 2024, or 2026, sorry?

Tanya Jakusconek: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you for that. Should I be thinking about the cash that Newmont is paying for this, is this going to be part of the cash coming into the IPO, or would this USD 2 billion be cash that is going to be potentially used for share buyback and/or the top-up dividend at the end of 2024, or 2026, sorry?

Tanya Jakusconek: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you for that. Should I be thinking about the cash that Newmont is paying for this, is this going to be part of the cash coming into the IPO, or would this $2 billion be cash that is going to be potentially used for share buyback and/or the top-up dividend at the end of 2024, or 2026, sorry?

Speaker #4: Okay, sorry. You're very hard to hear. But Tanya, I think if I got the question right, the cash we get back would be the majority of the return to shareholders, correct?

Mark Hill: Okay. Sorry. You're very hard here. Tanya, I think if I got the question right, the majority of the cash we get back would return to shareholders. Correct.

Speaker #6: Okay. And then my final question now, Mark, just regarding some of the processes for this IPO itself. You mentioned that you've completed your separation agreements.

Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. My final question, Mark, just for some of the processes for this IPO sale. You mentioned that you've done your separation agreement. I think everything has been filed with the SEC, the technical report. What are we still waiting for? Is it just approval from the SEC filing the three-and-a-half-year financials, completing the new board? Maybe just the process of what we need to go for this to go live. Thank you.

Speaker #6: I think everything has been filed with the SEC—the technical report. What are we still waiting for? Is it just approval from the SEC, filing these three-and-a-half-year financials, and completing the new board?

Speaker #6: Maybe just the process of what we need to do for this to go live. Thank you.

Speaker #4: Actually, Tanya, let me hand it over to George. He's more up to date with the—

Mark Hill: Actually, Tanya, let me hand it over to George. He's more up to date with the-

Speaker #5: Sorry, Tanya. So I would say we're actually very close, but like I said, now that we have this agreement with Newmont and their consent, one of the things we want to do is go back and look at previous structures and compare that to what we have today.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): I would say we are actually very close. But like I said, now that we have this agreement with Newmont and their consent, one of the things we want to do is go back and look at our previous structures and compare that to what we have today. We just want to go do that and make sure we do our diligence and understand the impact of that, because we think there are big savings there. That is where we are at the moment.

George Joannou: I would say we are actually very close. But like I said, now that we have this agreement with Newmont and their consent, one of the things we want to do is go back and look at our previous structures and compare that to what we have today. We just want to go do that and make sure we do our diligence and understand the impact of that, because we think there are big savings there. That is where we are at the moment.

Speaker #5: So we just want to go do that and make sure we do our diligence and understand the impact of that, because we think there are big savings there.

Speaker #5: So that's where we are at the moment.

Speaker #6: Okay. Thank you.

Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. Thank you.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Tanya.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Tanya.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Lawson Winder. Would we offer securities? Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Lawson Winder with BofA Securities. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #3: Thank you very much, operator. And hi, Mark. Good morning to you and the team. Very nice operational call—congratulations on that. Just a couple of questions.

Lawson Winder: Thank you very much, operator. Hi, Mark. Good morning to you and the team.

Mark Hill: Hi.

Lawson Winder: Very nice operational. Congratulations on that. Just a couple of questions. To follow up on Four Mile, I noted that the PFS is still on track for completion in 2028. However, with it now vended into NGM, is there any scope to speed up development and potentially have the asset in production earlier than what the initial PEA had indicated, or around sort of early 2030? That is the first question.

Speaker #3: So, to follow up on Fourmile, I noted that the PFS is still on track for completion in 2028. However, with it now vended into NGM, is there any scope to speed up development and potentially have the asset in production earlier than what the initial PDA had indicated, or around sort of early 2030s?

Speaker #3: And then, yeah, so that's the first question.

Speaker #4: Okay, thanks, Lawson. Look, obviously my intention is to accelerate this as fast as possible. And now that I've sort of gotten through this process, I think that allows us to accelerate it, for sure.

Mark Hill: Okay. Thanks, Lawson Winder. Look, obviously my intention is to accelerate this as fast as possible. Now that I sort of got through this process, I think that allows us to accelerate it for sure. We are still going to be limited by family timelines and things like that. But where I think we can really advance it, Will, is on the processing side as well, right? Because I am going to advance that, and I have already talked to Natascha about it. We are going to advance that all in parallel. That is why we are driving those declines and doing this drilling. So it may not come on earlier, but hopefully when it comes on, we will be able to ramp it up a lot quicker and to actually a higher production target. That would be my target.

Speaker #4: Now, we're still going to be limited by the timing, timelines, and things like that, but where I think we can really advance is on the processing side as well, right?

Speaker #4: Because I'm going to advance that, and I've already talked to Natasha about it. We're going to advance that all in parallel while we're driving those declines and doing this drilling.

Speaker #4: So it may not come on earlier, but hopefully, when it comes on, we'll be able to ramp it up a lot quicker and to actually reach a higher production.

Speaker #4: Target. That would be my target.

Speaker #3: Okay, very helpful. Thank you, Mark. And then maybe I could jump to the IPO. So, after the initial minority interest is spun out, I mean, at this point, have you changed your thinking on what could come after?

Lawson Winder: Okay. Very helpful. Thank you, Mark. Then maybe I could jump to the IPO. So after the initial minority interest is spun out, I mean, at this point, have you changed your thinking on what could come after? I think you had indicated previously that it would just be an initial minority interest IPO, and that would be it. Is there any thought to eventually IPO-ing 100% of BNA at this point?

Speaker #3: So, I think you had indicated previously that it would just be an initial minority interest IPO, and that would be it. Is there any thought to eventually IPO-ing 100% of BNA at this point?

Mark Hill: No. Lawson Winder, not at this point. I think we're still on track to do the 10% and just show the value and highlight the value of a dedicated management team. Just by the way, we've already pretty much split the management team and, hopefully you've noticed the change in production and safety and things like that with just having that dedicated focus. Anyway, to answer your question, no, there's no update if we're going to go past 10%.

Speaker #4: No. So, Lawson, not at this point, I think. We're still on track to do the 10%, and just show the value and highlight the value of the dedicated management team.

Speaker #4: And just by the way, we've already pretty much split the management team, and hopefully you've noticed the change in production and safety, and things like that, with just having that dedicated focus.

Speaker #4: So anyway, to answer your question, no, there's no update—we're going to go past 10%.

Speaker #3: Okay, very helpful. And then, in terms of the process, will there be a marketing process that will kick off in the relatively near future?

Lawson Winder: Okay. Very helpful. Then in terms of the process, will there be a marketing process that will kick off in the relatively near future?

Speaker #4: There will be, but I don't know what the date is, George.

Mark Hill: There will be, but I don't know what the date is, so we'll let you know.

Cecil Holland: Well, again, we just have to go back and look at that. Also, absolutely there will be a marketing process.

George Joannou: Well, again, we just have to go back and look at that. Also, absolutely there will be a marketing process.

Speaker #5: Well, again, we just have to go back and look at that. But also, absolutely, there will be a marketing process.

Lawson Winder: Okay, great. Thank you very much for taking the questions.

Speaker #3: Okay, great. Thank you very much for taking the questions.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Lawson.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Lawson Winder.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Anita Sonny with CIBC. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Anita Soni with CIBC. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Anita Soni: Hi. Good morning. Mark, congratulations on your new role, and on improving operations at NGM. My first question was with respect to the capital that you were talking about. I think you just talked about declining infrastructure. I am just wondering what the capital would look like for a new roaster or a facility of that sort, and then what can we also expect in terms of NGM capital, going forward?

Speaker #2: Hi, good morning. And Mark, congratulations on your new role and on the improving operations at NGM. My first question was with respect to the capital that you were talking about.

Speaker #2: I think you just talked about sort of declining infrastructure, and I'm just wondering what the capital would look like for a new roaster or a facility of that sort.

Speaker #2: And then, what can we also expect in terms of NGM capital going forward?

Speaker #4: Okay, that's a good question, Anita. So, on the roaster, I want to re-optimize the whole process flow. I mean, you've been there several times.

Mark Hill: Okay, that's a good question, Anita Soni. On the roaster, I want to re-optimize the whole process flow. I mean, you've been there several times, so you've seen what it's like. The roaster, we've actually got Hash looking at it permanently now. I would've said it's USD 2.5 billion. I don't really know, but it'd be around that number. That will offset a lot of things as you know, moving trucks and stuff all over the country side as well, and it would reduce some other infrastructure requirements. As far as other capital, and Bess will help me out. There's nothing else. What else is material that's coming up in NGM?

Mark Hill: Okay, that's a good question, Anita Soni. On the roaster, I want to re-optimize the whole process flow. I mean, you've been there several times, so you've seen what it's like. The roaster, we've actually got Hash looking at it permanently now. I would've said it's $2.5 billion. I don't really know, but it'd be around that number. That will offset a lot of things as you know, moving trucks and stuff all over the country side as well, and it would reduce some other infrastructure requirements. As far as other capital, and Bess will help me out. There's nothing else. What else is material that's coming up in NGM?

Speaker #4: So you've seen what it's like. So the roaster, I'm we've actually got hatched looking at it criminally now. I would have said it's two and a half billion dollars.

Speaker #4: I don't really know, but it'd be around that number. But that will offset a lot of things, as you know, trucking stuff all over the countryside as well.

Speaker #4: And it would reduce some other infrastructure requirements. And then, as far as other capital—and Bess will help me out—there's nothing else, is there? What else is material that's coming up in NGM?

Speaker #5: That's really a lot of bits. So, obviously, our development of Fourmile has been guided by the market, and the conceptual PA that we learned of—$1.5 to $1.7 billion that we'll be spending over the next few years.

Cecil Holland: It's really it. Obviously our development of Four Mile has been guided to market.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): It's really it. Obviously our development of Four Mile has been guided to market.

Mark Hill: Yeah.

Cecil Holland: The conceptual PEA is in the range of USD 1.5 to USD 1.7 billion that we'll be spending over the next few years on Four Mile. Apart from that's really the items that we've got in our capital portfolio. We are planning, this year to pull some capital forward, for the expenditure that we have on replacing our truck fleets at Turquoise Ridge. That's really a key project for us, has also got autonomous hauling, if we have a call and depends upon the success of those projects. We still also expect to land our capital alignment that we've guided previously at least for North America. Those are the big ones.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): The conceptual PEA is in the range of $1.5 to $1.7 billion that we'll be spending over the next few years on Four Mile. Apart from that's really the items that we've got in our capital portfolio. We are planning, this year to pull some capital forward, for the expenditure that we have on replacing our truck fleets at Turquoise Ridge. That's really a key project for us, has also got autonomous hauling, if we have a call and depends upon the success of those projects. We still also expect to land our capital alignment that we've guided previously at least for North America. Those are the big ones.

Speaker #5: On Fourmile, and apart from that, that's really the items that we've got. Our capital portfolio—we are planning this year to pull some capital forward for the expenditure that we have on replacing our truck fleets at Fairpoints Ridge. And actually, a few project pluses are also tied to what's on the waste hauling that we have at Carlin.

Speaker #5: There's probably more success with those projects, but we still also expect demand or capital in line with what we guided previously, at least for North America.

Speaker #5: So, those are what we've got.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Bess. Does that answer, Anita?

Mark Hill: Thanks, Bess. Does that answer, Anita Soni?

Speaker #2: Yeah, that's a good answer. I think I also wanted to ask about the Fourmile PEA. I understand you are moving forward with the PFS with a different type of structure, I guess, in terms of what you're looking for infrastructure.

Anita Soni: Yeah, that's a good answer. I think I also wanted to ask about the Four Mile PEA. I understand you are moving forward with a PFS with a different type of structure, I guess, in terms of what you're looking for infrastructure. But would this PEA, should that not have been filed 45 days after you announced the PEA? I would venture to say that that's probably part of the reason why you're seeing your share price move, because we don't really have a barometer right now outside of a slide deck that'll give you the bare essentials in terms of how to model this. You're seeing wide degrees of variance in terms of what people are modeling for Four Mile.

Speaker #2: But with this PEA, shouldn't that have been filed 45 days after you announced the PEA? And I would venture to say that that's probably part of the reason why you're seeing your share price move, because we don't really have a barometer right now outside of a slide deck that will give you bare essentials in terms of how to model this.

Speaker #2: And so you're seeing wide degrees of variance in terms of what people are modeling for four-mile. e. So would you be able to file the PEA that was put out last year so at least we have something to go with while this PFS comes out?

Anita Soni: So would you be able to file the PEA that was put out last year so at least we have something to go with while this PFS comes out?

Mark Hill: That's right. Anita Soni, it's a fair question. Do you reckon that's why our share price is down 7%?

Speaker #4: Actually, Anita, it's a fair question. Do you reckon that's why our share price is down 7%?

Speaker #2: Well, I mean, if everyone's debating whether or not there's—what the $2 billion is—and people are backing out something lower, which is something that you said.

Anita Soni: Well, I mean, if everyone's debating whether or not there's, what the USD 2 billion is and people are backing out something lower, which is something that you said on the call, then it's because they're not certain of what the Four Mile value is.

Speaker #2: On the call, then, it's because they're not certain of what the Fourmile value is.

Speaker #4: Yeah. Okay.

Mark Hill: I haven't got a good answer to that.

Speaker #5: I haven't got a good answer to that.

Mark Hill: I haven't got a good answer to that.

Speaker #3: I mean, when we filed the or when we issued the PEA, it was conceptual in nature. And still to a technical.

Cecil Holland: When we filed the, or when we issued the PEA, it was conceptual in nature and still have to do a technical.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): When we filed the, or when we issued the PEA, it was conceptual in nature and still have to do a technical.

Mark Hill: Okay. But Anita Soni, you're saying you haven't got enough information by the table.

Speaker #4: Okay. But Anita, you're saying you haven't got enough information—basically, that's what you're saying.

Speaker #2: Yeah. I mean, yeah, there's a lot there were a lot of things that are unknown in terms of mining methodology. Unit costs, right? There was we didn't know about this NPI, right?

Anita Soni: Yeah. There were a lot of things that are unknown in terms of mining methodology, unit costs. We didn't know about this NPI. That was one major thing that was embedded in there, but nobody knew about. Anyway, I'll leave it there. I also just wanted to ask

Speaker #2: That was one major thing that was embedded in there, but nobody knew about it. So anyway, I'll leave it there. I also just wanted to ask, in terms of fiber,

Mark Hill: Sorry, Anita, let me just-

Speaker #4: Yeah, let me just. But we will take that away, right, and see how we can do a better job. And I understand what you're asking, so.

Anita Soni: Sure

Mark Hill: We will take that away, right, and see how we can do a better job. I understand what you are asking, so I will work something out and come back to you.

Speaker #4: I'll work something out and come back to you.

Speaker #2: Okay. And I wanted to try one last time on the fiber line and, Mike, can you give us some round numbers in terms of what that would add to the equation?

Anita Soni: Okay. I wanted to try one last time on the Fiberline and Mike. Can you give us some round numbers in terms of what that would add to the equation? I am assuming, and by the math, I would assume that you are, so Newmont is paying in for Four Mile, but they are also exchanging their, you guys are reciprocally paying for their 38.5% of Four Mile and Mike. So it is the net, I guess it is 61.5% that they are vending in of those specific assets to get to a collective $4 billion. Is that the right way to look at it?

Speaker #2: I'm assuming—and by the math, I would assume—that Newmont is paying in for Four Mile, but they're also exchanging, so you guys are reciprocally paying for their 38.5% of Four Mile and Mike.

Speaker #2: And so it's net. It's like, I guess it's 6.6 or 6.15% that they're vending in on those specific assets to get to a collective $4 billion?

Speaker #2: Is that the right way to look at it?

Speaker #4: Yeah. So the right way is, yes, we're paying for 61.5% of the market fiber line. And that other settlement amount, which we're certainly not going to get into.

Mark Hill: Yeah. The right way is just we are paying for 61.5% of Mike and Fiberline and that other settlement amount which we are certainly not going to get into. Look, Anita, we agreed-

Speaker #4: Look, Anita, we agreed we were just going to go out with a number, and that was quite a bit. So, look, I apologize, but no, I can't give you that breakdown.

Anita Soni: Okay

Mark Hill: we're just going to go out with a number, and that was what it is. I apologize.

Anita Soni: Sure

Mark Hill: I can't give you that breakdown.

Speaker #2: Okay. All right. I guess with the IPO coming up, people are trying to understand what that significant component of Four-Mile is. So, any additional information would be helpful.

Anita Soni: Okay. All right. I guess with the IPO coming up, people are trying to understand what that significant component of Four Mile is, so any additional information would be helpful. Thank you. I'll leave it there.

Speaker #2: Thank you. I'll leave it there.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Anita. Appreciate it.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Anita. Appreciate it.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Daniel Major with UBS. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Daniel Major with UBS. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Daniel Major: Hi, team, and thanks for the questions. Sorry, just a clarification on the $4 billion, just to be clear, is that the combined transaction value of 61.5% of Fiberline and Mike and 38.5% of Four Mile, or is it just the Four Mile component? Sorry if that's already been stated.

Speaker #6: Hi, team, and thanks for the questions. Sorry, just for clarification on the $4 billion, just to be clear—is that the combined transaction value of 61.5% of Fiber Line and Mike and 38.5% of Four Mile, or is it just the Four Mile component?

Speaker #6: Can you just say sorry, if that's already been stated?

Speaker #4: Sorry. So, when you net everything together—and anyone, please jump in here if I get this wrong, right?—to get to the $4 billion number, it is the value of Fourmile, the 38%.

Mark Hill: Sorry. When you net everything together, and anyone jump in here if I get this wrong, right? To get to the $4 billion number, it is the value of Four Mile, the 38%. Then you have to net off the value of 61.5% of Fiberline and Mike. There is some money in there to settle some legacy disputes, for want of another word, right, as well. Then if you want to understand the full value, there's obviously some benefit to Barrick by getting that consent and reducing the friction costs on the IPO.

Speaker #4: Then you have to net off the value of 61.5% of Fiber Line, and Mike, there's some money in there to settle some legacy disputes for one or another, right?

Speaker #4: As well. And then, if you want to understand the full value, there's obviously some benefit to Barrick by getting that consent and reducing the friction costs on the IPO.

Daniel Major: Okay.

Speaker #4: I'll probably make it very complicated, Daniel, but...

Mark Hill: I probably make it very complicated, Daniel, but.

Speaker #6: No, no, that's okay. Just being clear. Okay, that's fine. And then, I mean, you've alluded to some of this already, but if I look at the high-level parameters of the 2025 PEA—600,000 to 750,000 ounces, $1.5 to $1.7 billion of capex, and $650 to $700 all-in sustaining cost—you suggested there's $2.5 billion more capex maybe on downstream processing, and maybe some upside to the production. Would it still be fair to assume that the all-in sustaining cost would be comparable to the $650 to $700?

Daniel Major: No, that's okay. Just being clear. Okay, that's fine. You've alluded to some of this already, but if I look at the high-level parameters of the 2025 PEA, 600,000 to 750,000 ounces, USD 1.5 billion to USD 1.7 billion of CapEx and USD 650 to USD 700 all-in sustaining cost. You suggested there's USD 2.5 billion more CapEx maybe on downstream processing and maybe some upside to the production. Would it still be fair to assume that the all-in sustaining cost would be comparable to the USD 650 to USD 700?

Speaker #4: Yeah, I would say it's comparable. And hopefully, depending on where we locate that roastery, it could actually exceed—because you want to say something.

Mark Hill: Yeah, I would say it's comparable and, hopefully, depending where we locate that roaster, you could actually exceed. Did you want to say something?

Cecil Holland: There is one point that we would raise, and sorry, it's Cecil Holland speaking. These AISC ratings that we put up at the bottom of the conceptual PA were naturally based at the consensus gold prices at the time, which from memory was around about USD 2,500 with some excess. So if you do apply today's long-term average consensus prices of USD 3,600 an ounce, there's about USD 100 sensitivity for every USD 1,000 if the gold price moves. So, the right way would be to look at it is to say the range that we put up previously plus USD 100 to take into account the fact that the gold price has moved USD 1,000.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): There is one point that we would raise, and sorry, it's Cecil Holland speaking. These AISC ratings that we put up at the bottom of the conceptual PA were naturally based at the consensus gold prices at the time, which from memory was around about $2,500 with some excess. So if you do apply today's long-term average consensus prices of $3,600 an ounce, there's about $100 sensitivity for every $1,000 if the gold price moves. So, the right way would be to look at it is to say the range that we put up previously plus $100 to take into account the fact that the gold price has moved $1,000.

Speaker #5: There is one point that we would raise—and sorry, that's Alan speaking. Our basic rate is that we put our fiber conceptual PEA, we're naturally based at the consensus gold prices at the time, which from memory was around about $2,500, with this in excess.

Speaker #5: So if you do apply today's long-term analyst consensus prices of $3,600 an ounce, there's about a $100 sensitivity for every $1,000 of the gold price moved.

Speaker #5: So the right way to look at it is to take the range that we put out previously and add $100 to account for the fact that the gold price has moved $5,000.

Speaker #4: Okay. And Daniel, just to go back though, to the engineering side of it—obviously, the idea is that we either increase the overall production capacity in Nevada or reduce trucking.

Mark Hill: Okay. Daniel, just to go back, though, just to the engineering side of it. Obviously, the idea is that we increase the overall production capacity in Nevada or reduce trucking. So yes, there'll be more capital, but it will increase the production profile and lower the cost. That would be the target.

Speaker #4: So yes, I would say there'll be more capital, that it will increase the production profile and lower the cost. That would be the target.

Speaker #6: Okay. And sorry, the line wasn't totally clear. So, yeah, so 3,600—you'd add $100 to the $650 to $700. Was that what you alluded to, just to be clear?

Daniel Major: Okay. The line wasn't totally clear. Yes, at 3,600, you'd add 100 bucks to the 650 to 700. Was that what you alluded to, just to be clear?

Speaker #4: Yeah. That's correct. Yes.

Mark Hill: That is correct. Yes.

Speaker #6: And that incorporates the tech NPI sensitivity in there?

Daniel Major: That incorporates the tech NPI sensitivity in there?

Speaker #5: Correct. It includes all royalties, including the tech.

Mark Hill: Correct. Includes all royalties including the tech.

Speaker #6: Okay. Okay, that's clear. And then, sorry, just a final question on this. In terms of if we're looking at the valuation of the standalone project, or relative to what's implied in the $4 billion and the various elements, is there any—or can you provide some more detail on whether Newmont benefited from any assumptions around their 38.5% share of the infrastructure in that calculation that was imputed in the value of today's transaction?

Daniel Major: Okay. Okay, that is clear. Sorry, just a final question on this. If we are looking at the valuation of the standalone project or relative to what is implied in the $4 billion and the various elements, is there any, or can you provide some more detail on whether Newmont benefited from any assumptions around their 38.5% share of the infrastructure in that calculation that was imputed in the value of today's transaction?

Speaker #4: I'm not sure I understand that question, Daniel.

Mark Hill: I am not sure I understand that question, Daniel. What do you-

Speaker #6: Okay, so there's a net off against displacing other material from the process plants. How is that adjustment made?

Daniel Major: Okay, so there is a net off against displacing other material from the process plants. How is that-

Mark Hill: Oh, yeah.

Daniel Major: adjustment made?

Speaker #4: Yes, that is taken into account. It's taken into account by the two technical teams. By the way, the two technical teams—one from Newmont and one from Barrick—sat down with the model and all of the data and went right back and took all of that into account when we came up with these figures.

Mark Hill: Yeah. That was taken into account by the two technical teams. By the way, the two technical teams, one from Newmont and one from Barrick, sat down with the model for, and all of the data, and went right back and took all of that into account when we came up with these figures.

Speaker #6: Okay, thank you. And maybe just one more, if I could. You've obviously—I guess, yeah, Mark, you're going to be leading the IPO vehicle.

Daniel Major: Okay. Thank you. And maybe just one more, if I could. You've obviously, I guess, yeah, Mark, you're going to be leading the IPO vehicle. Can you give us any indication of how advanced you are in recruiting for senior management positions in the parent company?

Speaker #6: Can you give us any indication of how advanced you are in recruiting for senior management positions in the parent company?

Mark Hill: Look. We're advancing that discussion, right, and for the next leader of Barrick, and we'll be updating you, I would say, shortly is the right term. We'll update the market shortly. It's an advanced process, Daniel.

Speaker #4: Look, so we're advancing that discussion, right? And for the next letter of BARRICK, we'll be updating you—I would say "shortly" is the right term.

Speaker #4: We'll update the market shortly. It's an advanced process, Daniel.

Speaker #6: Okay, thanks so much for the questions.

Daniel Major: Okay. Thanks very much for the questions.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Daniel.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Daniel.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Bennett Moore with JP Morgan. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Bennett Moore with J.P. Morgan. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #6: Hey, good morning. Mark and Helen, congrats on the strong quarter, and thank you for taking my question. I want to pivot to a slightly different detail—ramp plans for Lululegoo, specifically in regard to the push into open pit ore. What sort of capex may be required to support this, and what is the risk appetite to do so?

Bennett Moore: Hey. Good morning, Mark and Helen. Congrats on a strong quarter. Thank you for taking my question. I want to pivot to a slightly different topic here. I am wondering if you can discuss in more detail ramp plans for Loulo and Gounkoto, specifically in regard to the push into open pit ore, what sort of CapEx may be required to support this and the risk appetite to do so.

Speaker #4: Okay. Thanks, Bennett. I'm going to hand it over.

Mark Hill: Okay. Thanks, Bennett. I am going to hand it over to Gus.

Speaker #5: So I think the best way to explain Lululegoo at the moment is, as we've said, we've ramped it up quite successfully. So what it has become is it's become self-sustaining.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): I think the best way to explain Loulo-Gounkoto at the moment is, as we have said, we have ramped it up quite successfully. What it has become is it is become self-sustaining, and therefore, any capital and growth at the moment that we are funding is self-sustained funding. Our expected growth for next year would start coming from the Baboto pushbacks, and the open pits on probably early or middle of Q2. That is, I think, most I can say at the moment. We are still looking at optimizing those plans. But certainly, we would be starting to move into the open pits in H1 of next year.

George Joannou: I think the best way to explain Loulo-Gounkoto at the moment is, as we have said, we have ramped it up quite successfully. What it has become is it is become self-sustaining, and therefore, any capital and growth at the moment that we are funding is self-sustained funding. Our expected growth for next year would start coming from the Baboto pushbacks, and the open pits on probably early or middle of Q2. That is, I think, most I can say at the moment. We are still looking at optimizing those plans. But certainly, we would be starting to move into the open pits in H1 of next year.

Speaker #5: And so, therefore, any capital and growth at the moment that we are funding is self-sustained funding. And so our expected growth for next year would start coming from the Bobota pushbacks.

Speaker #5: And the open pits are probably early or middle of the second quarter. So that's, I think, most I can say at the moment. We are still looking at optimizing those plans.

Speaker #5: But certainly, we would be starting to move into the open pits in the first half of next year.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Seth.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Ben.

Speaker #6: All right, thanks for that context. And then, maybe on the production cadence overall— I know you gave some commentary, Mark, on the back half for both gold and copper— but NGM and PV are tracking towards the high end, and LG is tracking ahead.

Bennett Moore: All right. Thanks for that context. Then maybe on the production cadence overall, I know you gave some commentary, Mark, on the back half for both gold and copper, but NGM and PV tracking towards the high end, LG tracking ahead. What level of conservatism do you feel is kind of baked in at this stage?

Speaker #6: So, what level of conservatism do you feel is kind of baked in at this stage?

Speaker #4: Well, I don't think it's conservative necessarily, but look, we're going to hit our goals. I just wanted to put something else on the table.

Mark Hill: Well, I don't think it is conservatism, necessarily. But, Ben, look, we are going to hit our guidance, as I said. Just, I suppose, to put something else on the table, we have had Veladero down for, I think it is 2 weeks now, but we had a weather event where we had to evacuate everyone. I am sure you probably saw it on social media and things, out of Chile, and it has been a. So that has hit us, and Pilbara has been down for the opposite reason, because Wiley Creek Dam dried up, and we had to shut the whole plant down. So while I am still confident we are hitting guidance, and you are right, NGM is in a good place and so is PV, we have had some other issues throughout the portfolio. Both of them are actually mother nature events. They are not actually operational problems.

Speaker #4: We've had Valadero down for, I think it's two weeks now. We had a weather event where we had to evacuate everyone. I'm sure you probably saw it on social media and things out of Chile and the United States.

Speaker #4: So, that has hit us. And Holger has been down for the opposite reason, because Wildly Creek Dam dried up and we had to shut the whole plant down.

Mark Hill: So that has hit us, and Pilbara has been down for the opposite reason, because Wiley Creek Dam dried up, and we had to shut the whole plant down. So while I am still confident we are hitting guidance, and you are right, NGM is in a good place and so is PV, we have had some other issues throughout the portfolio. Both of them are actually mother nature events. They are not actually operational problems.

Speaker #4: So, while I'm still confident we're hitting guidance, and you're right, NGM is in a good place, and so is PV, we have had some other issues throughout the portfolio.

Speaker #4: And nothing—both of them are actually Mother Nature events. They're not actually operational problems. So, I still think the guidance is fine, but it's certainly not conservative.

Mark Hill: I still think the guidance is fine, but it is certainly not conservative guidance.

Speaker #6: Understood. And then, real quick, just wondering how turnover trended at NGM during the quarter—if you're still in the mid-teens range?

Bennett Moore: Understood. Then real quick, just wondering how turnover trends at NGM during the quarter, if you are still in the mid-teens range.

Speaker #4: Who has that number? It was 14%. Someone else brought this up. Does anyone know what the answer is? I'll have to get back to you on that, Bennett.

Mark Hill: Who has got that number? It was 14%. Someone else brought this up. Does anyone know what the answer is? I will have to get back to you on that, Bennett. It is a good question, and it is something we are actually focused on is, making Barrick, and especially NGM, the employer of choice, right? It is not that long ago that everyone wanted the job at Barrick. We are working on that. As I said, the culture at NGM, despite what might have been in some articles, has, in my opinion, turned around completely, right? You can tell that just by the performance that I said, their production performance, their safety performance, just when you go there, the attitude of the workforce is certainly better than it was. But I will get you the actual number if you can note that down. We will come back to you.

Speaker #4: It's a good question. And it's something we are actually focused on—making Barrick, and especially NGM, the employer of choice, right? It's not that long ago that everyone wanted a job at Barrick.

Speaker #4: And so we are working on that. And as I said, the culture at NGM, despite what might have been in some articles, has, in my opinion, turned around completely, right?

Speaker #4: And you can tell that just by the performance that I said: their production performance, their safety performance—just when you go there, the attitude of the workforce.

Speaker #4: It's certainly better than it was. But I'll get to the actual number if you can note that down, and we'll come back to you.

Speaker #6: Understood. Thank you. Best of luck.

Bennett Moore: Understood. Thank you. Best of luck.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Ben.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Ben.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Matthew Murphy with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Matthew Murphy with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Mark Hill: Matthew, I cannot hear you. Matthew, can you hear us?

Speaker #4: Matthew, I can't hear you if you're talking. Matthew, can you hear us? Okay.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Bob Brackett with Ben Stein Research. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Bob Brackett: Good morning. A broader question, then maybe I will follow up with the NGM. The broader question would be, if I think about the ex-North America business, is there anything you are contemplating in terms of portfolio management on that asset base? Is that going to be slowed down by the IPO process?

Speaker #7: Good morning. I have a broader question, and maybe I'll follow up with the NGM. The broader question would be: if I think about the ex-North America business, is there anything you're contemplating in terms of portfolio management on that asset base?

Speaker #7: And is that going to be slowed down by the IPO process?

Mark Hill: Sorry, Bob, just to explain that to me a bit more. What do you mean by that?

Speaker #4: Sorry, Bob, could you explain that to me a bit more? What do you mean by that?

Speaker #7: So, think of all the assets you have. There are a lot of natural partners, or natural owners, of some of your assets that sit outside of North America.

Bob Brackett: Think of all of the assets you have. There is a lot of natural partners or natural owners of some of your assets that sit outside of North America. Does the North America IPO process sort of take all of your attention, and therefore we shouldn't expect a lot of portfolio management for the non-North American businesses as we proceed, say, into the year-end or early 2027?

Speaker #7: Does the North America IPO process sort of take all of your attention, and therefore, we shouldn't expect a lot of portfolio management for the non-North American businesses as we proceed, say, into year-end or early 2027?

Speaker #4: Well, look, actually, so Bob, the Rest of the World portfolio is actually one of our biggest growth things. We talk about NGM a lot, but actually, just at our recent board meeting, we had a whole session on growth for Rest of the World because of the potential. You've seen what's going on at Lumwana and even around Kibali, and what we can do there.

Mark Hill: Look, actually, Bob, the rest of the world portfolio is actually one of our biggest growth things. We talk about NGM a lot. But actually, just at our recent board meeting, we had a whole session on growth for the rest of the world because of the potential you are seeing what is going on at Lumwana and even around Kibali and what we can do there. So the current plan is actually grow the rest of the world, and that is what the focus will be. And Seve, if you want to chime in and say anything.

Speaker #4: So, the current plan is actually to grow the rest of the world, and that's what the focus will be. And Seth, if you want to jump in and say—

Speaker #5: Yeah, I think you've covered it, Mark. I think the most important thing for the rest of the world is that, firstly, we are looking at how we can best optimize that portfolio.

[Company Representative] (Barrick Mining): Yeah. I think you have covered it, Mark. I think the most important thing on the rest of the world is that, firstly, we are looking how we can best optimize that portfolio, and in terms of what Mark suggested around the partnerships that we are able to leverage. And also, we have a real embedded growth profile, especially brownfields growth around most of our operations. So we have already embedded infrastructure and, of course, that is probably the lowest cost answers you are going to add into your production profile. And then, as you said, we have got the Lumwana expansion on the copper side. So there, Bob, there is. I am not sure how familiar you are with those assets, but there is a lot of potential around those current assets, which we are trying to crystallize and put into a proper plan.

George Joannou: Yeah. I think you have covered it, Mark. I think the most important thing on the rest of the world is that, firstly, we are looking how we can best optimize that portfolio, and in terms of what Mark suggested around the partnerships that we are able to leverage. And also, we have a real embedded growth profile, especially brownfields growth around most of our operations. So we have already embedded infrastructure and, of course, that is probably the lowest cost answers you are going to add into your production profile. And then, as you said, we have got the Lumwana expansion on the copper side. So there, Bob, there is. I am not sure how familiar you are with those assets, but there is a lot of potential around those current assets, which we are trying to crystallize and put into a proper plan.

Speaker #5: And in terms of what Mark suggested around the partnerships that we're able to leverage, we also have a real embedded growth profile, especially brownfields growth, around most of our operations.

Speaker #5: So, you have already embedded infrastructure, and of course, that's probably the lowest cost answer you're going to add into your production profile. And then, as you said, we've got the Lumwana expansion on the copper side.

Speaker #4: So, David, Bob, I'm not sure how familiar you are with those assets, but there is a lot of potential around these current assets, which we're trying to crystallize and put into a proper plan.

Speaker #6: Very clear.

Bob Brackett: Very clear. A quick follow-up. On the agreement with Newmont, are there any contingent payments involved at all, say, for hitting exploration upside, or can we consider it pretty much done independent of future exploration success?

Speaker #7: A quick follow-up. On the agreement with Newmont, are there any contingent payments involved at all—say, for hitting exploration upside—or can we consider it pretty much done?

Speaker #7: Independent of future exploration success?

Speaker #4: No, it's done.

Mark Hill: No, it is done, Bob.

Speaker #7: Okay. Very clear. Thank you.

Bob Brackett: Okay. Very clear. Thank you.

Speaker #4: Thanks.

Mark Hill: Thanks.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Steven Breen with TD Cowens. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Steven Green with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #7: Yeah, thanks, Mark, for taking my question. I just wanted to follow up a little bit on how you intend to optimize MGM and potentially accelerate Four Mile.

Steven Green: Yeah. Thanks, Mark, for taking my question. I just wanted to follow up a little bit on how you intend to optimize NGM and potentially accelerate Four Mile. I think Lawson and Anita asked most of my questions, but maybe you could just talk a little bit about permitting requirements and what will be required there.

Speaker #7: I think Lost and Anita asked most of my questions, but maybe you could just talk a little bit about permitting requirements and what will be required there.

Speaker #4: Okay, thanks, Bennett. So, look, on the permitting, obviously we want to get the permit for the full and whole stakeholders, right? Which is first.

Mark Hill: Well, thanks, Steven. So look, on the permitting, obviously, we want to get the permits for the Bullon Hoe big mine services there first. After that, when I look at this, which again, is why it is critical that we got this joint venture sorted out. I have to understand what we can do as far as processing before I can even start the permitting. I am trying to accelerate that for that very reason. It is probably not a bad time to get permits in Nevada as well. I cannot give you a clear answer on the timing on the permits and that sort of thing. But now that we have got this agreement in place, we are going to sit down and completely optimize Nevada and that ore flow. I know Newmont is supportive also of increasing processing capacity. Steven, we always get into the same discussion.

Speaker #4: And after that, when I look at this which again is why it's critical that we got this joint venture sorted out. I have to get I have to understand what we can do as far as processing before I can even start the permitting.

Speaker #4: So, I'm trying to accelerate that for that very reason. It's probably not a bad time to get permits in Nevada as well. So, I can't give you a clear answer on the timing of the permits.

Speaker #4: And that sort of thing. But now that we've got this agreement in place, we are going to sit down and completely optimize Nevada and that OreFlow.

Speaker #4: And I know Newmont is supportive also of, what's the word? Increasing processing capacity. And Steven, we always get into the same discussion—that we're going to have to flesh out—which is autoclave versus roaster, and where it should be positioned.

Mark Hill: We are going to have to thrash out that there is autoclave versus roaster and where it should be positioned. I just have not got a clear answer on that, but that is what we will be accelerating starting tomorrow.

Speaker #4: And I just haven't gotten a clear answer on that, but that's what we'll be accelerating starting tomorrow.

Speaker #7: Okay, thanks. And just to follow up again on Fiber Line. Mike, I believe you said there were roughly 6.4 million ounces in those properties?

Steven Green: Okay, thanks. Just to follow up again on Fiberline and Mike. I believe you said there were roughly 6.4 million ounces in those properties. Is that correct? Are those inferred ounces?

Speaker #7: Is that correct? Are those inferred ounces?

Speaker #4: Actually, we don't know what the breakdown of the $6.4 is. I was just going through the presentation before this. I'll get back to you on that, Steven.

Mark Hill: Actually, does anyone know what the breakdown of the 6.4 is? I was just going through the presentation before this. I will get back to you on that, Steven.

Speaker #7: Okay, thanks. And where roughly are those properties, and how far advanced are they?

Steven Green: Okay, thanks. Where roughly are those properties, and kind of how far advanced are they?

Speaker #4: So, the fiber line is close to the infrastructure circle and is reached. I think that is at a reasonable status—it's an open bit, so it would be a matter of a satellite deposit.

Mark Hill: Fiberline is close to the infrastructure at Turquoise Ridge, and I think that is at a reasonable status. It is an open pit, so it would be a matter of a satellite deposit. Mike, at this stage, I have not put a lot of value towards that mining product.

Speaker #4: And Mike, at this stage, I haven't put a lot of value toward that. It's mainly fiber line.

Speaker #7: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Lawson Winder: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Steve.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Dave.

Speaker #1: Our next question comes from Martin Pradiya with Veritas Investment Research. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Operator: Our next question comes from Martin Pradia with Veritas Investment Research. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #8: Hi, thank you for taking my question. I wonder if you have given any thought to floating 10% of X North America as well.

Martin Pradia: Hi. Thank you for taking my question. I wonder if you have given any thought about floating 10% of the ex-North America as well?

Martin Pradier: Hi. Thank you for taking my question. I wonder if you have given any thought about floating 10% of the ex-North America as well?

Mark Hill: Floating 10%?

Speaker #4: I think 10%.

Speaker #8: Floating 10% of like you basically now you're going to have like almost two companies like the North America and everything else, right? The rest of the world.

Martin Pradia: Floating 10% of. Basically now you are going to have almost two companies, the North America and everything else, right? The rest of the world.

Martin Pradier: Floating 10% of. Basically now you are going to have almost two companies, the North America and everything else, right? The rest of the world.

Mark Hill: Correct.

Speaker #8: Put you down the line, low 10% of the non-North America. The same way you're doing now, the IPO for the North Americans.

Martin Pradia: Could you, down the line, float 10% of the non-North America, the same way you are doing now, the IPO for the North Americas?

Martin Pradier: Could you, down the line, float 10% of the non-North America, the same way you are doing now, the IPO for the North Americas?

Speaker #4: Okay, Martin, I've got to be honest—we have not had that discussion. It's never come up, so it's certainly not on the table at the moment.

Mark Hill: Okay. Martin, I have to be honest, we have not had that discussion. It has never come up, so it is certainly not on the table at the moment.

Speaker #8: Okay. And the second question I have is, in other expenses, there was this $200 million for Lululong and Koto. Because you're applying, if I understand correctly, that 2023 law retroactively.

Martin Pradia: Okay. The second question I have is, in other expenses, there was this USD 200 million for Loulo-Gounkoto. Because you are applying, if I understand correctly, the 2023 law retroactively. Was that part of the original agreement? If it was, why it was not included in the previous quarter? Is this a new development?

Martin Pradier: Okay. The second question I have is, in other expenses, there was this USD 200 million for Loulo-Gounkoto. Because you are applying, if I understand correctly, the 2023 law retroactively. Was that part of the original agreement? If it was, why it was not included in the previous quarter? Is this a new development?

Speaker #8: Was that part of the original agreement? And if it was, why was it not included in the previous quarter?

Mark Hill: No, look, this is a bit of a fluid situation, as you can probably imagine. Let me hand it over to Helen to explain that.

Speaker #4: No, look, this is a bit of a fluid situation, as you can probably imagine. But let me hand it over to Helen to explain that.

Speaker #3: Oh, hi. Thank you for the question. The nature of the spending is additional royalties, penalties, and the associated interest. This is based on the retrospective application of the 2023 Mining Code, specifically for the years 2024 and 2025.

Helen Cai: Hi. Thank you for the question. The nature of the spending is additional royalties, penalties, and associated interest based on the retrospective application of the 2023 mining code, specifically for the year of 2024 and 2025. Previously, we had already settled anything related to 2023 and earlier years. This is specifically for the 2024 and 2025. In terms of the amount paid, we paid cash USD 200 million in April. Also, we had a further payment demand of USD 48 million that was received in July. I hope that answers your question.

Speaker #3: So previously, we had already settled anything related to 2023 and earlier years. But this is basically for 2024 and 2025. In terms of the amount paid, we paid cash of $200 million.

Speaker #3: In April, and also, we had a further payment demand of $48 million. That was received in July. I hope that answers your question.

Martin Pradia: No. I'm just curious why it was not included in the previous quarters. It was part of the original agreement. It wouldn't have been provisioned or something?

Martin Pradier: No. I'm just curious why it was not included in the previous quarters. It was part of the original agreement. It wouldn't have been provisioned or something?

Speaker #8: No, I'm just curious why it was not included in the previous quarters. Like, it was part of the original agreement. Wouldn't it have been provisioned or something?

Mark Hill: Yeah. Maybe you can answer that. I think, maybe to simplify, the original agreement only covered up to 2023. We continued applying our conventions through that period where we were negotiating and in dispute. We still applied our original conventions, and so this was effectively, as per the agreement, it only applied the retrospective application to 2023, and therefore we had to do a reconciliation with the government for 2024 and 2025. This was that payment, effectively.

Speaker #4: That might be. You can answer that. I think maybe, to simplify, the original agreement only covered up to 2023. We continue applying our conventions.

Speaker #4: Throughout that period, we were negotiating and in dispute. We still applied our original conventions, and so this was, effectively, as per the agreement—it only applied the retrospective application to 2023. Therefore, we had to do a reconciliation with the government for 2024 and 2025.

Speaker #4: And this was that payment, effectively.

Martin Pradia: Okay. That's very clear. Thank you.

Martin Pradier: Okay. That's very clear. Thank you.

Speaker #8: Okay, that's very clear. Thank you.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Martin.

Mark Hill: Thanks, Martin.

Operator: Our last question comes from Lawson Winder from BofA Securities. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #1: Our last question comes from Lawson Winder from BOFA Securities. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

Speaker #5: Yep. Thank you very much, operator. Thank you for taking the follow-up. I'll try to make this really quick. So, one, you noted the revisions to the NGM joint venture agreement.

Lawson Winder: Yep. Thank you very much, operator. Thank you for taking the follow-up. I will try to make this really quick. One, you noted the revisions to the NGM joint venture agreement. Can you give us a little bit more color on the extent to which this would give Newmont additional say in various aspects of the operations, including the release of technical reports and whatnot? Whatever detail you are able to disclose, I think would be very helpful.

Speaker #5: Can you give us a little bit more color on the extent to which this would give Newmont additional say in various aspects of the operations, including the release of technical reports and whatnot?

Speaker #5: Whatever detail you're able to disclose, I think would be very helpful.

Speaker #4: Well, I think there are a couple of things. Firstly, just as a general point, it's not actually in the joint venture agreement, but the way we've approached this is completely different.

Mark Hill: Well, I think there is a couple of things. Firstly, just as a general thing, it is not actually in the joint venture agreement, but the way we have approached this is completely different. Newmont will have access to whatever information and the site and we have already done that with François and now with David, their technical leads too. Then they come and give any feedback they can, any suggestions, which is always helpful. As far as actual rights go, the main one is around they do have a right to, and Joe correct me if I get the language wrong, but when we appoint the general manager of NGM, we have to get their consent to who that is, which I do not have an issue with that at all. I think that is fair enough.

Speaker #4: So Newmont will have access to whatever information and the site, and we've already done that with France Fire and now with David, their technical lead.

Speaker #4: So, and then any suggestions, which is always helpful. As far as actual rights go, the main one is around—they do have a right to—and Joe, correct me if I get the language wrong—but when we appoint the general manager of NGM, we have to get their consent to do that.

Speaker #4: Which I don't have an issue with at all, so I think that's fair enough. And then the other part, which we agree on—and which I also think would be quite helpful, now that we've reset this relationship and actually want to advance this as quickly as possible—is that we will likely embed in our executive team at NGM a Newmont employee, which I think will help.

Mark Hill: The other part was, which we agree, which I also think would be quite helpful now that we have reset this relationship and actually we want to advance this as quickly as possible, is that we will likely embed in our executive team at NGM a Newmont employee, which I think it will go a long way just with the transfer of information and things like that, and they will feel more comfortable with what is going on. So at a high level, that is what we agreed. There was some other things around exclusive property committees and other things like that, but really that has been taken care of with the fact we have bought Four Mile and Five One and those things into the joint venture. So it is probably less relevant.

Speaker #4: It'll go a long way just with the transfer of information and things like that, and they will feel more comfortable with what's going on.

Speaker #4: So, at a high level, that's what we agreed. There were some other things around excluded property committees and other things like that, but really that's been taken care of by the fact we've bought Four Mile and Five Line and those things into the joint venture.

Speaker #4: So it's probably less relevant.

Speaker #5: Okay, that's very helpful. If I could ask a follow-up on the question about the CEO search for Barrick Mining, can you share with us if there's a preference between an internal or external candidate?

Lawson Winder: Okay, that's very helpful. If I could ask a follow-up on the question about the CEO search for Barrick Mining parent. Can you share with us if there's a preference between an internal or external candidate?

Speaker #4: Well, my preference is always internal, but at this stage, we haven't reached a conclusion yet as to who it is. So there are internal and external candidates.

Mark Hill: Well, my preference is always internal, but at this stage, we haven't got to that conclusion yet, who it is. So there's internal and external candidates. That's all I really can say. My preference is obviously internal.

Speaker #4: That's all I really can say. My preference is obviously internal.

Speaker #5: Okay. Great, thanks very much, Mark.

Lawson Winder: Okay, great. Thanks very much, Mark.

Speaker #4: Thanks a lot, Los.

Mark Hill: Thanks a lot, Lawson.

Operator: I will now turn the call over to Emily Chieng.

Speaker #1: Our last one, a call over to Emily Chen.

Mark Hill: Excellent.

Speaker #6: Thank you. I just have an emailed question that I'd like to read out. Given some feedback from shareholders, are you considering a spin-out of North America to existing shareholders rather than an IPO structure?

Helen Cai: Thank you. I just have an emailed question that I would like to read out. Given some feedback from shareholders, are you considering a spin-out of North American Barrick to existing shareholders rather than an IPO structure? So shares of Nevada Gold Mines and PV are distributed to current shareholders rather than diluting existing holders.

Emily Chieng: Thank you. I just have an emailed question that I would like to read out. Given some feedback from shareholders, are you considering a spin-out of North American Barrick to existing shareholders rather than an IPO structure? So shares of Nevada Gold Mines and PV are distributed to current shareholders rather than diluting existing holders.

Speaker #6: So, shares of Nevada and PV are distributed to current shareholders, rather than diluting existing holders.

Speaker #4: Okay. Who asked the question?

Mark Hill: Okay. Who asked the question?

Helen Cai: Daniel.

Emily Chieng: Daniel.

Speaker #5: Daniel.

Mark Hill: I know Daniel. A lot of people ask that question. The short answer is no. Anything else, Emily?

Speaker #4: No, I know Daniel likes to ask—a lot of people ask that question. So the short answer is no. Anything else? Emily?

Helen Cai: That is it. Thank you. I will turn it back to the moderator.

Emily Chieng: That is it. Thank you. I will turn it back to the moderator.

Speaker #6: That's it. Thank you. I'll turn it back to the moderator.

Speaker #4: Thank you.

Mark Hill: Thank you.

Operator: Thank you. That concludes our event for today. You may now disconnect.

Q2 2026 Barrick Mining Corp Earnings Call

Request DemoDemo

Barrick Mining

Earnings