Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Barrick Gold Q4 Results Conference Call. During the presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. Afterwards, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded, Thursday, February 14, 2013. I’d now like to turn the conference over to Greg Panagos. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone and thank you for tuning in to Barrick Gold’s fourth quarter and full-year 2012 earnings conference call. I’m Greg Panagos, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations and Communications. With me today are our President and CEO, Jamie Sokalsky; our Senior Executive Vice President Kelvin Dushnisky; our Executive VP and CFO Ammar Al-Joundi; and our Executive VP and Chief Operating Officer, Igor Gonzales; and our Senior VP of Global Exploration, Rob Krcmarov, all of whom will be available to answer questions after the presentation. Before we begin, I’d like to point out 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 latest year-end report or our most recent AIF filing. And with that, I will turn the call over to Jamie.

Thanks, Greg, and thank you everyone for joining us today. Before I begin the presentation, I’d like to acknowledge that today we announced that Igor Gonzales, our COO will be retiring this year. And on behalf of the entire organization, I’d like to thank Igor for the tremendous contributions he has made over the years. Igor joined the Company in 1998 and served as President of the South American region until his most recent appointment as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in 2012. He played a key role in the growth of South America and has been an outstanding leader and role model to many. All of us here wish him well in his retirement. Igor intends to remain with the Company until his successor is appointed and we will immediately commence with a global search. Thank you, Igor. So turning to the presentation, as you all know we reported our fourth quarter and full-year 2012 results and 2013 outlook today. First, I’d also like to acknowledge that 2012 was a difficult year for Barrick and no doubt disappointing for our shareholders. I can assure you that I share your disappointment. Today I’d like to review some of the challenges we faced and how we’re dealing with them head on. But also many of the accomplishments we had and the opportunities we have going forward. In this presentation, I will also provide an update on some of our priorities as well as the progress we’ve made in achieving them. We made some significant strives in the implementation of a stricter, more disciplined approach to capital allocation, a model which continues to drive the future direction of the Company. So turning to our financial results, the net loss for the fourth quarter and full-year reflects a $3.8 billion after…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) And our first question is coming from the line of Kerry Smith with Haywood Securities. Please go ahead.

Thanks operator. Jamie, for the Goldrush, when do you think that you would have some sort of an engineering study on this project, in terms of what the scale would look like, what the scope would look like and what the timing would be like?

Rob Krcmarov, could you take that question please?

Sure, Jamie. We’ve started doing – I should step back a bit, we completed the scoping study last year. It was based on last year’s resource. We’ve initiated a feasibility study, which is based on the updated resource. The prefeasibility study should be completed probably in the second half of next year and then we will advance that to a full feasibility study.

So its going to take you over 12 months to get the prefeas done, so it would take another 12 months to do a full feasibility, which would put you [through] 2015?

Yeah, I’m going to guess its going to take round about a year to do a full feasibility.

Okay. So that would be mid 2015 before you would have that done at that point of time? Then it would be – that maybe two, three years to permit?

Yeah.

Okay. Okay and then just on the reserves Rob, while I’ve got you, the gold price was up obviously on the trailing three-year average. So you are using, I think with 1,500 this year and it was 1,200 last year, the reserves didn’t actually go up. What would the reserves have been if you would have run them at 1,200?

Kerry, I will answer that question. The reserve increase this year represented about half due to the price and the other half due to the drill bit. So, it’s not a perfect calculation, but approximately 50% of that increase was price related and 50% due to the drill bit. Our reserves really are not that sensitive to gold price changes. So, whether the price had gone up 1,500 to $1,500 or it stayed at $1,200 you would not have seen a material change in our overall reserves due to the quality of our reserves and the nature of the grades.

All right. Actually the grade -- the grade didn’t actually change from last year to this year on the reserves?

Right.

So that’s – I thought maybe it wasn’t really (indiscernible) typical price. Okay. Okay, that’s good. Thanks, Jamie.

You’re welcome, Kerry.

And your next question comes from the line of Horhay Beristain with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Hi, Jamie. My question is that, right now in this world for metals and mining stock; it seems that there was more sellers than buyers. And I was wondering if you could just comment generally about the bid-ask spread, we’ve seen some recent asset sales in the mining industry go forward for sort of 10% of book values. Could you just comment a little bit about where you see the bid-ask spreads and what I am getting at is, would you be exploring other alternatives as a way to maximize asset value; for example an IPO or some kind of more creative financing?

Sure. Hi, Horhay. Thank you for the question. I think you’d be surprised how many buyers there are actually out there, the comments there are lot more sellers than buyers is not really our experience. We have been approached by many different buyers from the multiple ranges of size whether it's smaller companies where there’s private equity, larger companies that there’s quite a universe of people who are buyers that are interested in assets and you can probably appreciate that. When I started talking about portfolio optimization the phone actually started ringing off the wall a bit with a lot of wires and many of those wires are serious buyers that are willing to look at paying a fair price for assets. So, I think we’d also be comfortable ultimately looking at various options in terms of optimizing our portfolio. So, we're not averse to multiple different types of transactions that could entail not just selling assets outright, but that's something that we'll continue to look at. But I think the opportunity for us to monetize assets going forward is actually quite strong and to do those at reasonably price levels.

Great. There's just some kind of background noise on your line there, but just as a follow-up, I thought you mentioned something which I think really strikes at the core of this dilemma that…

Sorry, Horhay.

Sorry, you mentioned something which strikes at the core of the valuation of mining equities right now that there are good parts with inside the mining companies you mentioned, for example, that you've got eventually one-third of your reserves and above 55% of your production at four core mines, which if they were independently listed would be the third largest gold producer in the world. I'm just wondering if you could comment a little bit about, would Barrick be willing to go further in terms of even restructuring the company down the road if you don't see a reaction in your stock in the next few quarters from asset sales to perhaps take a different approach to splitting the company's assets in ways that would liberate the value trap therein?

Well, I'd say that we're open to anything that will increase shareholder value, Horhay. But really right now, our focus is on ultimately making sure that we achieved some of the priorities that we're looking at, getting Lumwana back on track, ramping up Pueblo Viejo, ensuring that Pascua-Lama is advancing as we expect. So, I'm sure there are all kinds of different opportunities but our focus and priority is really on managing the company well, doing it under the disciplined capital allocation framework and looking to optimize the portfolio as we did as we attempted to sell ABG showed the seriousness of our approach and our objectives of selling assets. But ultimately, yeah, if there are other ways that we can increase shareholder value, we'd have to consider them down the road. But I think we've got to make sure that we manage his company well and can look at some of those things later.

Great. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Horhay.

Your next question comes from the line of Patrick Chidley with HSBC. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning, everybody. Just a question on the details of the plan Lumwana this year. Just wanted to find out where you see grades going and what sort of strip ratio do you expect? And therefore just to give us an idea of what changes you see this year and how's that driving the cost profile?

With Lumwana, I'd say that the grade -- you'll see an increase in the overall grade process this year. It's one of the reasons why the production is up. Ultimately, we did and in a lot of our exploration drilling did find some higher grades. Those didn't translate yet into an overall increase in the reserve grade, but due to the dilution in the block models and some of the costs in terms of those grades. But we're going to continue to work towards getting those ounces -- getting those pounds into the resource and the reserves. Our reserve grade process this year at Lumwana is going be up about 13% from last year. Anticipate the -- as I mentioned, the reserve grade stayed about the same but I'm optimistic that as we move forward and we look at potential opportunities to reduce costs, that we'll be able to hopefully get some of those higher grades into the overall resource and ultimately into reserves.

So, grade up 13% a share at Lumwana?

Yeah.

Okay. And then just on another slightly subject is, in terms of your all-in costs, you’re now going to be talking about more. You include sustaining capital in that and that just – several of the companies begin to try and split out sustaining capital from development capital, which is then different from expansion capital. So just maybe you can – what’s your definitions as to what sustaining capital is, for example, will it include all of the development that you would need in the mine including deferred or stripping capitalized stripping?

Patrick, why don’t I let I let Ammar answer that question.

Hi, Patrick. Its Ammar here and you’re asking a very good question that a number of people including the industry as we go through this and we’re finalizing the definitions of it are also asking, because there is a lot of interpretation. But what we’re including in sustaining capital is basically everything to continue to operate the mine. So, yes we’re including the standard definitions of sustaining CapEx, but also the stripping, the associated exploration, all of the things to continue to operate the mine.

Okay. Thanks. And what about things, for example your low – your stock piling low grade ore, but you’re spending money to do that?

Well, there is – I mean, there is a specific accounting process for accounting that. That doesn’t really change much.

Okay. All right. So that won’t be [included]. Okay. Thank you very much Ammar.

Thanks, Patrick.

Our next question comes from the line of Stephen Walker with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, operator. Just a couple of questions. First of all, on Pascua-Lama, I’m wondering if you could give us the two or three critical items that need to be accomplished at Pascua-Lama in 2013 to maintain the timeline that has been laid out so far?

Well, I will add some – I will comment first Stephen and then I could ask Ivan Mullany who’s in the room as well to contribute anything else, but there are a number of critical items. One of them is the completion of the tunnel between Chile and Argentina where the ore is going to come through to the conveyor. We’re about 70% finished there. We’re making some good progress. It will be critical to complete that tunnel and it's – we’re certainly on schedule to be able to do that. There’s also the underground workings, very important area something that should be done and needs to be done in the summer season. It's a very extensive excavation, huge pipes are underground that are very -- a very important connection in the processing plant. It's hard to see in that photo that we had in the slide deck, but there’s a significant area of underground works that we’re making good progress on again, but ultimately it's something that is on the critical path. And then ultimately the pre-strip in Chile, we are still not able to pre-strip, and ultimately the ability to pre-strip which we still have certain time left in the schedule before that becomes a critical path item for us. That’s also going to be important, and so it's something that we’re working very hard to get the ability to pre-strip again.

Steve, the only other thing is you can see the cladding going on to the big buildings and between now and winter is getting, the bulk of the cladding on to the big buildings, so we can start setting the equipment that is essentially purchased during the winter process and start looking at the electricals. As Jamie said, underground working is pre-stripped and the cladding on the buildings will allow to get productive work in the winter, which will commence in about March of this year.

Perfect. And just as a follow-up on the pre-stripping; can you give us sort of where things stand with respect to the ongoing legal and regulatory processes. If you could expand on what those are and kind of where you stand in that resolving those, I guess, two issues?

Okay. Steven, I'll ask Kelvin to respond to that.

Sure. Hi, Steven. Well, I guess there's two things. First, in the fourth quarter of last year, there was unusually high wind and dust, and so we voluntarily actually stopped pre-stripping at that time. We had discussions with regulators and there's an agreement that we needed to do certain things to mitigate dust, add suppression measures, more ventilation in the tunnel and a monitoring program which are now well underway in working with the regulators towards, so that will help us get back on track. There's also water management. The program has a requirement to divert freshwater from water that could contact waste materials on site, and so having to work with the regulators now to refine the water management system as well. So the processes are ongoing. The discussions have been constructive, so we're on track but it's going to take a couple of months to get that back in order.

Okay. And that's the legal side of things or the two just combined?

That's the regulatory side. There is, as we reported earlier, there's a constitutional challenge that were brought by local residents. In Chile, there's a constitutional right for protection of environment and so individuals have brought claims. Those are working through the process. And so they're not directly linked.

And Kelvin, while I have you on the line, maybe you give us an update on Jabal Sayid and I apologize if you've covered this off. But where you stand on construction of the new explosives containment area and the timing on potential startup of Jabal?

Sure, Steve. Well, actually I'm happy to say we've been making good progress at Jabal Sayid over the last quarter, a little better than that. We've been constructively working with the regulators on kind of the new system, following their requirements for safety and security. And we've noticed some really good traction and constructive engagements. So, we're optimistic we'll actually be able to pull this schedule forward. I can't give a specific date around that, but at this point things look good.

Great. Thank you very much, Kelvin, and thank you Jamie.

You're welcome.

Thanks, Steven.

Our next question comes from the line of Greg Barnes with TD Securities. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Jamie or Kelvin, when would the pre-stripping become a critical problem if you don't get the permission to move ahead?

Greg, its Jamie. The pre-strip, it's important for us to get that back on track sometime late in the second -- by late second quarter. That's important for us and should we not get the pre-stripping back on passed that period of time, then it could start to impact the schedule somewhat.

Okay. Just switching back to Lumwana, I'm just wondering what happens now without the expansion going ahead? What happens to those assets? How does the production profile evolve? And I think Jamie, you did say in the presentation, you expect to step change after 2013 there. So I'm trying to figure out what that means and what we should like at going forward?

Well, Greg, I'll say that the step change is more directed towards getting the cost down rather than the production up in a significant way. I'd say that over the next number of years, the overall production targets won't dramatically differ from the targets that we've set for this year, perhaps targeting a higher level but not a significantly higher level. This is a mine that is likely in that at a current point around $2.50 a pound type mine. And on a going forward basis, we're certainly looking to try to lower the cost and there are many opportunities to do that. But ultimately, until we see either a higher increase in a copper price and if we had copper prices going above $4 a pound then we can start to reconsider doing the expansion again which has the potential to double the production. But we're going to need higher copper prices and/or a much lower cost for us to be able to consider that. I think it's important to stress that unless that happens and the returns are high, we’re not going to build the expansion, it doesn’t meet our investment criteria now. We’re not just going to produce that copper for the sake of producing it. But it is a great option for us and there are a couple of levers there, being the price of copper and the costs. And ultimately we’re hopeful that we will be able to get the production up in the future somewhat and lower the costs. But we still got some work to do.

Okay. And just one further question, with the royalty stream still obviously being a pretty attractive business with the recent transaction. Would you look at selling another 25% of the silver stream out Pascua-Lama?

We got the – we sold the 25% of – to Silver Wheaton as you know and we put on a silver collar hedge that provides a floor and gives us a lot of upside, so that’s given us a fair amount of protection over the next first five years of the mine. I guess, never say never, if it was an attractive transaction, if it made sense for us in terms of generating some additional cash, so that’s something that we could consider, but it’s certainly not a high priority for us right at the moment.

Okay. Thanks, Jamie.

Thanks,Greg.

Our next question comes from the line of Tony Lesiak with Macquarie Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning. Can you provide an update on the Turquoise Ridge open pit concept?

Still have some work to do on that Tony. Quite a bit more drilling, still early days there. We have 75% of the project, Newmont has 25%. So very optimistic that ultimately this is going to be a large mine in Nevada. But lots more drilling to do there before we really get into any type of a prefeasibility or feasibility. So, too premature for me to give any type of more concrete information on that.

Can you provide a timing for the prefeas, if there is going to be one?

Not at this point. Probably next year or something that, I’d say we would be looking at 2014 as a possible date for the prefeas.

Okay. And is there any way you could maybe give us a ranking of your growth options after Goldrush; if you could maybe list the top two or three that you’re most excited about.

Well I would say that, as I mentioned in the presentation, in this challenging environment we have no plans to build any other, any new mines. We’re going to advance Goldrush; we’ll keep advancing Turquoise Ridge; we’re focused on Nevada. Those are really the most attractive priorities for us and I wouldn’t want to rank anything else at this point those projects, we’re going to have to wait to see if we’re able to improve the economics. We’re going to take a look at the Sally ultimately and rethink that project in terms of further exploration perhaps a smaller size. So, I would say that the priorities for the Company, once we finish Pascua-Lama really are focused on Nevada.

Great. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Steve Butler with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Well guys, I was going to ask the question, but answered already on Turquoise Ridge. But as it relates to Cortez, Jamie the scoping study; what did it sort of point to? Did it point to a new expansion implied on Cortez or maybe just some – if you can sort of scope some high level parameters for us, if you could – going to share that? Thanks.

Hi, Steven. Are you talking about Goldrush or Cortez?

Excuse me; Goldrush. Thanks.

Okay. I think there are multiple options on that Steve, there are a few options that we’re looking at in terms of open pit, some underground, a combination of both. And so as the scoping study that we have is an old scoping study that really was done based on the previous level of resources, that 7 million ounces of resources. And as we've said, we've doubled the resources now to 14 million ounces and ultimately, I think we need to refresh that scoping study and the prefeas to better understand the much bigger size and the greater potential of this asset. So, it's a combination of things that I wouldn't want to actually say this is the way we're going. Maybe, Rob, you can add some comments.

Sure, Jamie. The scoping study, as you say, was based on the smaller resource. That really contemplated offsite processing. So we had existing capacity at our existing processing facilities. I guess as the resource continues to grow, we'll look at trade-off studies to determine whether standalone processing facilities work well or not. But, again, we're very excited that this thing will continue to go. And just let me put this in context, Steve. Since 2001, there's been 14 plus 10 million as discoveries and Barrick's got through them. And of the 14, 95 are in production. I guess in my view, maybe some of those might not get into production in the next 10 years. And so of those 14, Goldrush has the second highest grade. So it is phenomenon. We have – as Jamie said, we've got plenty of options to consider, a combination of open pit, underground or either on its own.

Okay. Thanks, Rob. Thank you.

Operator, this next question will have to be our last question of the call.

Certainly. Our final question comes from George Topping with Stifel, Nicolaus. Please go ahead.

Great, thanks. Whew, just made it. A question on Pascua-Lama, Jamie. Under the split out of projects infrastructure, there's 250 million to 325 million allocated for -- for [amount] at Pascua-Lama? Can you tell me how much more is still to be done on the last category as distinct from the headline CapEx number?

Its Ammar here, George. That's pretty much it. As we described in our notes, what that is, is sustaining CapEx that was planned to be spent later. What we concluded was the focus on returns is we had the construction teams on-site. It was materially, economically advantageous to do those projects with the construction teams on-site. So that's why we've put that in there. But there's really nothing else.

Right, okay. So [what’s] the option time and pre-strip suspension risk. The second question was on Pueblo Viejo. Can you share for us how January has shifted for the buildup at Pueblo Viejo?

Sure, George. January has been going well. We produced at about 60% of the run rate that we fully expect on a 100% basis for the year. So that's pretty much in line with our expectations. And so we're getting the autoclaves online and in January, 60% is right in the ballpark of where we're expecting to be.

Great. That 60% is on tons throughput or ounces?

Ounces.

Very good. Good, thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you everyone. We'll close the call off now. I'd like to thank everyone for participating on the call today. We look forward to a successful year, delivering on all of our priorities and objectives and reporting to you and updating you on the further progress as we move forward, and look forward to speaking with you again soon. Thanks again for being on the call and we'll speak to you very soon. Thanks. Good-bye.

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.