Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Barrick Gold Fourth Quarter 2011 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded, Thursday, February 16, 2012. I would now like to turn the conference over to Deni Nicoski, Vice President, Investor Relations at Barrick Gold. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I will bring to your attention the fact that we will be making forward-looking statements during the course of this presentation. For a complete discussion of the risks, uncertainties and factors which may lead to our actual financial results and performance being different from the estimates contained in our forward-looking statements, please refer to our year-end report or our most recent AIF filing. With that, I'll hand it over to Aaron Regent, President and CEO of Barrick.

Okay. Good morning, Deni, and thank you for joining us today. I'm joined here by -- with other members of the senior management team, including Jamie Sokalsky, our CFO; Peter Kinver, our COO; Kelvin Dushnisky, who's our Head of -- EVP in Corporate and Legal Affairs; and Rob Krcmarov, who's our Senior Vice President of Global Exploration. We're also joined – or, also joining us is Greg Patigos, [ph] who's our new Senior Vice President of Investor Relations and Communications. Greg joined us in early January and will be fulfilling that role. Deni, who has been Head of Investor Relation for some time, is going to be moving on to a senior role in our finance area. So at this point, I would like to thank Deni for his great work that he's done for us in this area and certainly delighted that he's going to be making a contribution in other parts of the company. So with that, for our call today, what we plan on doing is discussing some of the highlights of 2011. Our fourth quarter results, we'll provide an update on the projects. Then I'll turn the call over to Rob who's going to provide an update on our exploration programs, and then Jamie will provide more details of our financial results and the outlook for 2012. So looking at 2011, this is the time of year we can reflect back on the total progress in the past year. I think, overall, we've made progress in a number of areas. First, I think we're pleased that we were able to meet our production and cost targets for the year. We produced just under 7.7 million ounces of gold at a cash cost of $460 per ounce. Total cost basis and on a net cash cost basis,…

Thanks, Aaron. This slide is an illustration of our explorations factoring all today. So since 1990, we spent around $2.5 billion in exploration for an overall mining cost of only around $17 per ounce. During that time, since 1990, we've mined 118 million ounces of gold, we've acquired 110 million ounces and we found 148 million ounces through gold -- through exploration. And to provide a bit more detail on where some of those ounces have come from, as well as to demonstrate the exceptional optionality within our project pipeline, this updated slide shows the history of reserve and resource growth following acquisitions. So the gray bars represent the reserve and resource ounces at the point of acquisition of an asset, and the brown bars represent some of the material new discoveries we've made or subsequent ounces we found through exploration. You will note that Ruby -- that Red Hill and Goldrush are represented by the third bar from the bottom. And as this chart illustrates, one of our strengths is our ability to identify and deliver new ounces following any acquisition and also to add ounces through our own discoveries. The key point here is that our project valuation is really only a snapshot in time. We've got excellent optionality on many of our projects, and we have a remarkable track record in realizing that upside. And our track record of successful exploration continued in 2011. We replaced reserves to an industry-leading 139.9 million ounces. We grew measured and indicated and inferred gold resources towards 80 million and 40 million ounces, respectively. So our total gold inventory now stands at more than 260 million ounces. Total copper reserves nearly doubled, from 6.5 billion pounds to about 12.7 billion pounds. Copper M&I resources rose 17% to about 15 billion pounds,…

Thanks, Rob. Net earnings and cash flow in 2011 were a record for the company at $4.5 billion and $5.3 billion, respectively. On an adjusted basis, our net earnings were approximately $4.7 billion, up 33% from the approximately $3.5 billion in 2010. Our 2011 adjusted operating cash flow was $5.7 billion, and EBITDA increased 28% to $8.4 billion, another record from the $6.5 billion a year ago. Our trend of gold margin expansion continued in 2011, driven by the higher gold prices but also by our continued cost control. On a total cash cost basis, our cash margins increased 37% to $1,118 per ounce from the $819 per ounce in 2010, while on a net cash cost basis, margins were 33% higher at $1,239 per ounce from the $935 per ounce in 2010. These highlights -- these results clearly highlight the company's excellent leverage to the gold price. We have one of the lowest cash cost profiles among the senior gold producers, and our input cost hedging mitigates exposure to changes in foreign currency, exchange rates and oil prices and gives us greater predictability of our cash cost profile. For example, our largest single currency exposure is the Australian dollar, and we are fully hedged on Australian operating expenditures in 2012 at an effective average rate of just $0.81. Further to that, about 70% of our operating costs for 2013 are hedged at an average effective rate of just $0.74, and we have significant additional coverage after 2013 at attractive rates as well. We've also mitigated the impact of higher oil prices through the use of financial contracts and the production from Barrick Energy, such that a $10 change in the WTI crude oil prices impacts our 2012 total cash costs by less than $1 per ounce. The contribution from…

Great. Thanks, Jamie. And so in closing, 2011, I think, marked another year of good progress for the company. We sort of touched on this. We had strong operating results and record financial results. We continue to advance our project pipeline. We've replaced the reserves and drill resources. We've added 2 new mines with Lumwana and Jabal Sayid. We've had some greenfield discoveries with Red Hill and Goldrush, and we've had positive recognition for our responsible mining practices. So when you take that as a collection, I think it speaks well for the progress that was made last year. We continue to be pretty optimistic about the outlook for the industry and the company. Jamie just talked about the fundamentals for gold, which should be very price-supportive. And clearly, with the large production base that we have and the competitive cost position we have and the large margins we're realizing, we will be a major beneficiary which will result in, again, another year of strong financial performance. Our 2 mines, PV and Pascua-Lama, we're 1 year closer to getting those into production. The other projects to that pipeline continue to advance. As Rob highlighted, we've got significant momentum in our exploration programs, and that further demonstrates the value of a very structured, disciplined program and what it can generate for shareholders. And then we also expect to continue to improve our responsible mining practices. This is a complex area, an evolving area, and we're very committed to making sure we stay at the forefront of best practices. So with that, we'd be happy to take questions. So operator, I'll turn it over to you.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from the line of Jorge Beristain with Deutsche Bank.

Jorge Beristain with Deutsche Bank. My question was on the copper assets. If you could just again reclarify, have you hedged 100% of your copper outpour for 2012?

Jorge, it's Jamie. No, we've hedged about 1/2, just with floors, at $3.75. So 1/2 is protected with floors and the other is completely exposed. And 100% is completely exposed to higher prices and half is protected against downside.

Okay. And my other question on the copper unit is with the ramp-up of Jabal Sayid. You mentioned that there's also going to be some cost push this year. So you're kind of looking at an average cash cost, it looks like, of over $2 a pound. Against about a $3.75 backdrop, that's $1.75 of cash flow per pound times a pound in total, and it's about $1 billion EBITDA operation for 2012. I was wondering if you could just talk to the point of, has that acquisition of Equinox, is it living up to the expectations that you thought last year? Do you think that there's more room for lowering the cost as you get some economies of scale there into 2013? If you could just kind of talk about where the cost and what the copper price is doing relative to your expectations.

Sure, Jorge. Let me tackle that. I think that -- well, first, with respect to copper price, I think the copper prices actually performed very well, all things considering. When you look at the uncertainty in Europe and the United States and concerns about hard and soft landing in China, the fact that copper is around $3.80 a pound, I think, is quite a positive sign. And so for us, when we -- part of the view that we have is that the fundamentals for copper are quite strong near, mid, and long term, and we think that those are kind of playing out. So our view really hasn't changed on that. And a lot of it has to do with what we're seeing on the supply side, just the challenges of maintaining production, let alone discovery and bringing new mines into production. So that hasn't -- our view on that hasn't changed at all. With respect to the asset, there hasn't been many surprises. We sort of -- when we did our diligence, we recognized that the first, really, the first 18 months of operation were going to be a transition in 2 ways: transitioning from Equinox's operating practices to Barrick operating practices, and they're quite different. And there are a lot of things that we've identified which need to change in order to improve the performance and efficiency of the operation, and we're doing that now. And the second thing is as it transitions from Malundwe into Chile, where we saw the real value in that asset was in the Chimi deposit. And I think Rob sort of highlighted in his presentation the substantial growth in the resources that are there, and there's still significant upside as well. And that really does underpin the expansion. And you'll have -- we'll have like a 30-, 40-year mine once it's up and running. So I think that it's kind of -- as we said, it's -- there hasn't been too many surprises. We recognize that there are going to be challenges, operational challenges, but we have the capability to take those things on and that's what we're doing. But 2012 is a bit of a transition year, and that's kind of what we expected. I think if anything on Jabal Sayid, there's probably surprises on the upside in the Jabal asset. I think it's -- resource there is probably bigger than what we had originally anticipated, and it's a fairly straightforward operation. And so the cost will follow. Jabal, I think, you'll see significant improvement once we get up and running. You got to remember, we're in the startup phase. So like PV, with the fewer ounces, the cash costs obviously reflect that. But once you get up to scale, then we will see a beneficial impact on the unit costs.

Great. And sorry, if I could just have a quick follow-up. Just on the dividend policy, I do appreciate you have been raising it. You said about 170% or in the CAGR of something like 20% over the last 5 years. But do you believe that you could improve on your base dividend in 2012?

I don't want to -- maybe I'm not really in a position to commit to that. I think it's a discussion that we have at the board on a quarterly basis. What I would say, though, is if you look at the track record, the company does have a tradition of increasing the dividend on a regular basis. I think we recognize the importance of having a balance and allocating capital to invest in balance sheet management and returning capital back to shareholders. And particularly, in this environment with a low interest rate, there is increased demand and 4 dividends, and so we're very cognizant of that. And I assure you, this is something that at the board we have robust discussions about. So I can't commit to anything, but I could say that it is top line from a board perspective.

I just would flag, one of your competitors did put out a formal dividend allocation for 2012, which I found interesting. But I'll leave it there.

Our next question will come from the line of Stephen Walker with RBC Capital Markets.

I just have a couple of questions here. First of all, on sustaining capital. We've seen sustaining capital on a per ounce basis, I guess, more than double over the last 2 to 3 years. Currently, we're looking at about $165 an ounce in 2012 for Barrick's sustaining capital. When you look at your budgets over the next several years, what is a good range of sustaining capital on a per ounce basis or on a dollar basis for the next couple of years? And then as a follow-up, I know it's a little more difficult to forecast, but you've got obviously a capital number for the underground development and open pit capitalized stripping. I mean, those numbers are relatively well known in budgets and in forecasts. Do you have some guidance for that number as well? What is a good range of sustaining capital -- sorry, go ahead.

Sure. Stephen, it's Jamie. Well, a couple of points that I can maybe make first. Your comment about the $165 an ounce, if you look at the sustaining capital of $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion, remember that some of that relates to the copper assets as well. So on a gold per ounce basis, that number is a bit less than $165. So -- and then I think the other point to make is that sustaining capital has gone up because of the changes to IFRS accounting as well. And so that increase that you mentioned from previous years does reflect a little bit more of a change in the IFS accounting standards, which, as you know, we adopted this year. So against that backdrop, I'd say that probably on a going-forward basis, a number of around $150 an ounce for sustaining capital, I think, is a reasonable amount. And, again, that includes some of the stripping as well and underground development.

And per pound of copper?

Per pound of copper, I'd say that you're probably looking at something in the neighborhood of $0.10 to $0.20.

Okay. Great. Just, again, as we see the startup of Pueblo Viejo, the -- my understanding is working capital is not included within sort of the over capital -- the overall capital commitment to capital budget. 2 questions. I guess the first one is, when do you anticipate, if all goes as planned, going commercial at PV? And what sort of working capital needs will there be in that period before you do declare commercial production, that is we can offset some of the production revenues against working capital expenses or capitalized expenses?

Sure, Stephen. We anticipate that the actual commercial production, the accounting production will occur likely at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Actual production, as we're starting up, will be that midyear that we've talked about. But declaring commercial production is likely going to be at the beginning of the fourth quarter. And in terms of working capital, we probably got a few hundred million dollars that's required there in working capital. But as we are starting the production, some of that production does yet netted against the overall capital until we declare commercial production, which will be, as I mentioned, a few months later.

Great. One last question, if I might. At Porgera in PNG, there's been a couple of press articles coming out of the local industry news about some of the conflicts in the highlands and some of the power pylons being knocked down and power being disrupted. I'm trying to understand when you say your natural gas contracts are going up, how much of that is sort of inflation from the suppliers of power or the natural gas component to that power? And how much of it is sort of disruption in the region that comes to surface from time to time with respect to disrupting the power -- power lines, et cetera?

Stephen, it's Aaron. You are right. The Porgera operation has been impacted. Because there has been some sabotage to the power lines to the site. And so I think if you look at our production range this year, we've kind of built probably some increased flexibility into it, in anticipation that the production from Porgera might be more variable than we might have normally expected. But the situation is, I'd say, in hand with respect to the law enforcement agencies. And so we're optimistic that, that won't be an ongoing issue. But we have experienced some difficulties to the start of the year. That issue is separate from the power contract. I think Jamie mentioned in his comments, we had a long-term power supply agreement, which is very favorable to the company. And unfortunately, that expired last year. And so now we're in negotiations with ExxonMobil on the other side. And unfortunately, the gas prices in Papua New Guinea are substantially higher than what you might expect to realize here in North America. So I don't know, Jamie, if you want elaborate.

Sure. As Aaron mentioned, the natural gas prices that are inherent with the power costs are in the neighborhood of 5x higher than the natural gas prices that one might experience in North America. So that has quite an impact on the overall costs. About $10 an ounce of our total cost this year as a company have been -- of that increase are as a result of the higher power cost that we're experiencing at Porgera. So it has had a significant impact on not only Porgera and the Australia Pacific region but on the overall company cash costs as well. But we're looking at some other alternatives. We are actively negotiating and we're hopeful that we'll be able to mitigate some of that as we move forward. But we're looking at, I guess, the worst case scenario there in terms of a bit the reflection on our cash costs.

Our next question will come from the line of Paretosh Misra with Morgan Stanley.

Just looking at your capital expenditure on capital projects for 2013, do you expect that to fall to $1.7 billion? Could you provide any more details maybe as to which projects are included and how much of that is Pascua-Lama?

The bulk of that will be Pascua-Lama. That number reflects no other decisions on any other projects at this point. So the bulk of that will be Pascua-Lama. There will be some additional capital at a few -- small amounts of capital at a few other of the smaller projects, but we're still looking at the significant portion of that number being related to completing Pascua-Lama.

Okay. So no Cerro Casale yet in that number?

That's not -- that hasn't been approved, and that's not in any of those numbers post 2012 at this stage.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question will come from the line of Steven Butler with Canaccord Genuity.

Question, Aaron, I guess, on your any initial thoughts you may provide on Red Hill/Goldrush in terms of what you may be scoping? Are you looking at a potential for Cortez mill expansion or would this simply be displacing lower grade -- I think lower grade ore from Cortez with higher grade from Red Hill/Goldrush in the future?

Steven, that's tough to answer. I think it's still too early stage at this point. And I think what was pointed out, the primary objective for us right now is really to define the outer boundaries of the deposit. And then once we've done that, then we can start deciding on what processing options might make the most ends, whether it's standalone or whether we incorporate some of the other infrastructure we have. I think the good thing is, given its location is that we do have those options and some flexibility in that regard. So I think whatever outcome we come to, I think, we're -- as I said, we benefit from having those choices.

Great. And what are your thoughts on the expansion of Lumwana, Aaron? Is it looking at a sort of a 50% expansion to ultimate throughput here? And when I look at the resource grades beyond reserve, there is a marginally better resource grade. I mean, the reserves are 0.52%, the resources are just above or around 0.6%. Further, to Rob's discussion about the new resource area, I mean, at the end of the day, will that diluted grade be not heck of a lot better than the current reserve base in the Chimiwungo pit?

All right. I may ask Rob to or Ivan to answer that. But with respect to the expansion project, kind of the base line is -- the current throughput is around 25 million tons per annum, and we're anticipating perhaps doubling that to around 50,000 tons per annum. But...

As we said, we're looking at doubling production, and there won’t be much dilution from that reserve grade. That's the current assumption.

And can I just add something [indiscernible]. A lot of the drilling that Rob -- so completed at the tail end of last year, which was generally good news. It was not incorporated in that 0.52% number that you're seeing. So hopefully this year, as the good news continues, we will start incorporating hopefully some higher grades in the year-end 2012.

Our last question will come from the line of Elizabeth Collins with Morningstar.

I apologize if this has already been asked and answered. But on Pascua-Lama, you mentioned again the preproduction capital estimate of $4.7 billion to $5 billion, but then said that labor productivity has been lower than expected in general commodity and labor inflation. How likely is it that we'll end up seeing preproduction capital costs higher than $5 billion? And when can we expect, I guess, an official update on this project?

We're still tracking within the range of the CapEx numbers that we've set out in the schedule. I think we are flagging, though, that when we look at that range, we’re probably suggesting that we're probably bumping up against the top end of that range. Whether or not we go above that range, I think it's too early to say at this point. We -- as we get closer and move further along, and we'll be continuing our trending analysis. And to the extent that we see changes to that, if they go above the range, if that is the trending that we see, then of course, we'll come back and we'll update you as we go throughout the course of this year.

Okay. That's helpful. And then on reserve replacements, your price assumption for year-end has gone -- year-end reserves has gone from 1,000 to 1,200. I know that's not a big move, but still, can you give us an idea of how much of the addition was due to a higher price assumption?

Sure, yes. That 1,200 is basically a prescribed number that we're required to use. And in terms of reserves, it's roughly, I guess, just over maybe like a 60:40 ratio in terms of price and ounces with the drill.

Okay, so 60 being price?

About 60 -- yes, about 60 being price. Okay, I understand that's the last question. So I guess we'll conclude the call. And before I do, I just want to thank everybody for joining us today. We appreciate your taking the time to hear our update and appreciate the questions. And so with that, I know it's a busy day, so we'll let you go and we'll speak to you next quarter. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Have a great day, everyone.