Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Barrick 2019 First Quarter Results Conference Call. During the presentation, all participants are in listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded and the replay will be available on Barrick's website later today May 8, 2019. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mark Bristow, Chief Executive Officer for Barrick. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much and I'll start again and good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this -- our first results presentation as a merged Barrick and Randgold. And as I'm sure you would have already noticed and if you had followed some of the interviews this morning, we've certainly got off to a good start. The first quarter's performance was both positive and productive with a strong across the Board delivery from all the operations, topped by the transformative and long-overdue creation of the Nevada joint venture. It's worth noting again that the Barrick-Randgold merger was a very strategic one. I think it's important that I stress this. Designed to produce a company capable of rising above an industry in disarray, to become its most valued gold business. In the short time, the two companies have been together we've made significant progress towards the goals we set when we shared the deal with you and our investors and other stakeholders. But I would also stress that speed is not necessarily of the essence when you're playing a long game. Both Barrick and Randgold were built on the solid foundation of discovery, development, and early acquisitions and that future focus vision still directs our strategy today. So, whether you're a fund manager or a Finance Minister, don't look to us for instant gratification or easy pickings. The stakeholders who will reap our rewards are those who share our long-term vision and invest in or work with us as partners and that's really our commitment. And, in fact, this industry needs that to be able to recover its rightful place and become relevant again as an industry you can invest in. Please take note of the cautionary statement as presented on the screen and for those who would like to read…

Start with the room.

Start with the room. Okay. All right. Well, there we are.

We will begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As callers join the queue, we will take questions from the room first.

We also ask that before asking your question, please introduce yourself.

It’s Greg Barnes from TD. Mark or Catherine, there was no discussion in this presentation about the synergies in Nevada. You've had more time to look at that. You promised extremely large numbers, $500 million right out of the gate. Has your thinking changed? Could you – are you prepared to give us more thoughts on where you think that can go on, how the numbers would evolve over the next several years?

The short answer is it hasn't changed, and the second point is we'll tell you when we close. We'll give you more color. I mean, we are working on it. So what we've got is work streams on that, but there's a lot of work to do. I mean, the whole combination -- it's been exciting to see the consensus amongst both teams about being able to deliver on those synergies. There have been some synergies that are not going to be as good as what we thought as we get into the reeds around some of the operational -- underground operations, but at the same time we discovered new opportunities, which will be able to offset that. So we’re comfortable with our target of getting to that $4.7 billion NPV of the synergies.

To give you some color, subpar management is one that is coming out better than we anticipated and being able to look at what their feeds are versus ours and being able to maximize [indiscernible], so those are the sort of things that we’re focusing on now.

And again I think we only get the full value of this combined team once we close, right now there's been a massive amount of work on permitting and being prepared to put the permit applications in to be able to transport and change the way, there's been an enormous amount of work on the whole supply chain procurement, effectiveness and efficiencies and just the people. So we've now got a management team sorted out. Everyone’s got a place and the leader is Greg Walker, our Head of Operations for Catherine's division. He will take on the role as Executive Managing Director, and underneath him, we again managed to balance the leadership between the Barrick and the Newmont Goldcorp people. Very well and what's even more encouraging for me is some of the Newmont Goldcorp senior general managers are retiring and we've been able to go past them collectively and find really quality younger people who want to make this their career and they've been operating in those assets for some time. So it's a really an exciting human capital opportunity as well as the actual physical mining synergies and I'm sure that we’ll bring either more innovative synergies out of the business as we go along.

I just want to follow-up your comments about the ground conditions in Nevada and the changes you're making. Is that going to speed things up underground or slow it down, or is it going to…?

It’s a little bit of both. It's a good question. Very good. So the first thing is we need to do a lot more geotech work. So we've had the full team dedicated. We started with Goldrush. We've done Turquoise Ridge, and we've got a lot to do in the Newmont assets, but equally Newmont has come to the same conclusion. And they've recently employed some very high quality geotech engineer’s, people who we know well and who will be joining our team. So it's -- collectively both sides have recognized the importance of geotech work. Where we grew up, where I grew up that's like falling off a bus. They're running deeply and South African mines the whole geotech side of mine planning, whereas, traditionally Nevada has really focused on just the lowest common denominator effectively and designing everything high cost, very conservative mine plans, and we've already in CHUG, Cortez Hills underground we've already initiated a long-haul open stopping with backfill and where our efficiencies are a whole lot better. So there's a lot of opportunity. Goldstrike as well, a lot of the parts of Goldstrike, again we feel that having done the first bit of geotech work and we're catching up with the drilling, we've redirected some of the underground drill rigs to actually drill geotech holes because it's going to be critical in the mine design. And again we feel that it might delays things a little bit initially, but that's why we're putting in those declines. Is it really exploration and evaluation? But in the long-term, it will speed things up. And I'll just give you another example. The work -- the intersections and the rock net [ph] work that we're doing on Fourmile that's a whole solidified radiated, classic radiated, Colin radiated mineral deposit, which stands up very well. So we are very encouraged by what we see from the initial intersections and definitely that mass mining, underground mining will be -- definitely be possible in the Fourmile area. And I can wrap it on before we can go to the work that has been done at Carlin underground as well, and there's a lot of work to be done there, because you know again that's technically quite a challenging underground mine. And again our work that we're doing and the design and planning we're doing, I think will come up with some opportunities. We are re-planning all of Barrick's mines and we expect to do the same on the other side of the Nevada JV as well.

Mark, Stephen Walker here with RBC Capital Markets. You talked about Cortez Hills underground and the potential to take the cutoff grade from nine to seven to five grams.

That’s Turquoise Ridge.

Turquoise Ridge, sorry. And if you look at the several analysis for underground at Goldstrike and at Cortez Hills, does the geometry of the ore deposits allow you to increase the volume, and secondly does the mining cost decline -- decline in mining cost that you're starting to look at allow you to maintain the margins, as you drop, the cutoff grade for both at Turquoise Ridge and at Goldstrike?

Yeah. I think that's I mean look in Turquoise Ridge is a spectacular example of right now we've been mining and I mean the margin -- the costs that Newmont Gold Corp were charging us, to process that ore set the cutoff grade. And so, effectively a bit like in the old days in South Africa, we were mining through, 5-gram ore and leaving it behind. Ultimately, that becomes viable because you've now got it developed in the long run. But what the combination with Twin Creeks is going to do is we now are only paying for the real cost of the processing facility. And so, that drops the cost significantly. I want to say, $45. That's 1.5 gram just there. So that brings a whole lot of what we call wide areas, or areas that are developed and below the cutoff grades, suddenly become above the cutoff grades without any capital requirements as an example. So, there's an opportunity to that. And of course, you can't -- you can't apply long-haul as in stepping to narrow orebodies, but you can through a big wide orebodies and there are lots of those in Nevada. And again, so, when you look at the CHUG underground, the old CHUG underground which is flatter ore body and it was narrow. And you can't go and do that. But on the Deep South and the upper levels of that is that’s quite a complicate. I'm just getting used to the terminology. But that trend which we already are mining and we just developed the declines down. And so that and the reason we call Deep South is below the water table, all of the water table. So yeah okay. So it's the middle of that's why I understand that. So we are really…

Josh Wolfson at Desjardins, Mark you mentioned a pretty sizable capital member for the Pueblo Viejo projects. When I think about that, bigger picture there's one aspect which is the major tailings expansion, unlocks a lot of ounces. And then the second part which allows you to process a lot of that or a lot earlier. But there's not the margin opportunity there. So, in the past you talked about that project providing very good returns and easily surpassing threshold hurdles. So, what are we missing with that kind of capital number? How does it work?

So looking at -- so conceptually imagine 27 million ounces conceptually with a $1.3 billion investment, 800,000-plus ounces a year, at sort of the costs that you see now, we don't have to -- you could do it your own and so it makes real returns significant returns. So and part of that -- so you're right, that we needed a tailings disposal, site that will support that sort of size of mine, and we are working on that. We've got a number of targets that we're evaluating or potential sites that we're evaluating. And then the process side is very simple. Originally, the team was looking at a concentrate part, so you have a high-grade zone, direct fee, a high-grade ore. You have the lower grade ore and some very big stockpiles at around three-grams. Josh, are you got that? And so the idea then is to take part of that floater so you concentrate the gold. And then part of it that you oxidize, through a dump each base process, just putting water through a dump and you partially oxidized the sulfide. Yeah. So what we're doing now, is we're looking at -- so -- and that's all quite risky and it's re-handled. So what John and the team have done is that, we have true-tried and full-scale confirmation of being able to concentrate, and do ultrafine brand, both in Tongon and Kibali. And then the idea is you take that concentrate, ultrafine brand and it just starts the oxidation process and finish it in case. And so that you can control the partial -- because all you want to do is take the sulfide down, the energy down and they said they can put it through the autoclave. So you're taking a large amount of the lower-grade ore concentrating it producing the sulfur content and putting it through the process. And so -- and so the back end of the mine is the same and the opportunities that we're now modeling are quite exciting, because 800,000 ounces is the bottom-end of a profile that we're doing a trade-off on and as you increase that efficiency of that concentration, so you drop the costs. And as you drop the costs, you unlock the reserves. And so that's the model that we're doing now. And by quarter three, you will have a good handle on the actual – the scope. We've got a scoping study which works, and we will have a sort of pre-feasibility type project by the back half of this year. By next year we'll have – finished that. I don't know, John, do you want to add anything to that?

Yeah. The essence is the tank oxidation with ultrafine grind as an engineer that gives us controllability, because we can vary the grind to get the oxidation it require. On the pad, we get what we get, in terms of oxidation but now that we've got a process that we can control we've got a really viable project on our hands.

And the other thing, I would just point out to you Josh is – in the Goldrush plan, there was always in this long-standing debate about whether we have to drilled another rostel not as Goldrush grows. And so with the joint venture that goes away largely unless we find another 20 billion or 30 billion ounces. So – and not that that's not part off field to find more big deposits there. I mean, geologically that place has still got a long way to go.

And in terms of generating the returns so it sounds like it's a lot more than just accelerating production. It's really reducing the cutoff and –

Exactly. It's a classic economies of scale project. That's what really drives this project.

Thank you, Mark. Steve Butler, GMP. Mark as the previous slide before this one Tier 2 assets can you remind us again what you define as the lowest parameters for a Tier 2 asset in the portfolio?

3 million ounces returns of $1000 dollar long-term gold price.

And Massawa is beneath that you said when resource?

Yeah. Just short of that. I mean, Massawa is a particularly interesting example. It's one of the best by far undeveloped gold deposits in Africa. And again, there is couple of junior companies around it that have installed infrastructure. And so – and again, this is a project that we would be prepared to support and realizing its value and we've engaged with the Senegalese government because again the Senegalese government haven't really benefited from gold-mining. There's been gold mining in Senegal, but they've all been marginal. And so how do you – can you exploit the installed infrastructure already in that region and not pulled in another mine. And you know, I mean, that's the difference between our focus always is how do you make money? Not how do you produce answers? So there's an opportunity to work on that. Right now, we've got a focus on completing the process with the Senegalese on getting this project across the land.

Thanks, Mark. Ralph Profiti from Eight Capital. We have Fourmile currently excluded from the Nevada joint venture. Is that due to the 43-101 disclosure? Or is there potential that the economics maybe different inside and outside the joint venture depending on what you have on what comes out of the feasibility study?

So as you will recall, when we did this joint venture it was negotiated under quite a lot of pressure and the principles of the deal was based on market consensus of the assets the net asset value. And very clearly Fourmile wasn't in the market models. And so – and we know how valuable Fourmile is. So we felt that we would – we didn't want to put it in because there was no value. There was no market value on it. What we have agreed is – and Newmont kept out a couple of long-dated assets as well, where there is no value and then because they were not – they were marginal in the current markets. For Fourmile and for the other assets, either party has an ability to bring it into a joint venture at the feasibility NPV provided it delivers 15% IRR at $1200 gold. Am I correct? And it will be also brought in not only at the NPV of $1200 gold with an IRR of 15%, but it will attract the same premium multiple as the vending partners. So if Barrick was trading at 1.3 times, you would pay it and also the joint venture will pay for the cost of the feasibility, so you'll recoup the feasibility. And it will come into the joint venture and the other party can elect to maintain its shareholding by making good on the cash flows to the vending partner or can take the dilution. That's the way it is—that's the way it is structure. Am I correct in that? Thanks. We're done. Nicky – I mean, Jenny? So we are going to – we will have them, they can talk.

We will now take questions from the phone line. Our question comes from Chris Terry of Deutsche Bank.

Hi. Hello, Mark and team. Few questions for me. I understand you haven't got the medium to long-term guidance out yet and you're still working through that. I just wondered if there was an update on the timing for that and maybe just conceptually whether you could step through excluding the Nevada opportunity obviously on the JV which is stepped through some of the other things you found in the last three months and how that sizes up for the medium term. And then I was just also interested on the comments around divestments overall. I know you're taking a longer-term approach to that, but assets like Porgera I think it was interesting you talked about that with the Tier 1 opportunities, so I was just wondering whether you could make some high-level comments on some of the assets and the time line maybe on the divestments. Thank you.

Okay. So on the divestments I’ve said that our target is about – is around $1.5 billion of realized value as part of that program. And I won't be adding any more color to that process. I think that's good enough for you to measure me against. Right now, I don't want to start the public negotiation on these assets that all as I pointed out valuable. There's some that still needs some additional work to really get our head around the true value and we're busy with that. And also we are mindful that any transaction we do, we're clear about maintaining our relationship with our host countries because there's no country in which we will be realizing assets that isn't an important destination for our ongoing exploration. So that's the reason behind that. On the guidance, I have this ongoing negotiation with my team, so we have to reach a compromise and that is that we will definitely have it to you this year, but we have given you very clear guidance, 5.1 million to 5.7 million ounces and that's a five year horizon before 5.1 million to 5.6 million ounces and for the next five years that range before any disposals. And the cost profile, all-in sustaining cost is sitting at 8.70 to 9.20. But at the back end of that five years, it will be below all -- I mean at the bottom end or below that number. It's in the guidance we're giving you. And because you've consistently seen that guidance right from Randgold and Barrick, it's just that we've got a bit more work to be able to be comfortable with it, but that we're comfortable that we'll meet that guidance evenly. And by the way, there's nobody else that has that sort of guidance over five years. And the one thing I would add is we will meet our five-year guidance when we give it to you unlike most other people in this industry.

Okay, thanks, Mark. And just one follow-up, just on copper specifically, you've got a slide there in your pack, the last three months or so most investors have gone a little bit more bullish in copper. I just wonder whether you could talk about the role that copper assets and how you think about that within the mix? Thanks.

Yes. So copper is an absolutely strategic metal for us. Why? Because with the merger, we moved into much younger geological provinces, particularly the whole western seaboard of the Americas both south and north. And with that comes an association between gold and copper. And copper has many similarities on process -- in the process and also geologically apart from the fact that in many cases it co-habits with gold. So that's the reason and we're very clear when we launched this merger that we have specific criteria and for copper, it's going to meet our investment criteria and that's hard for a copper mine. And secondly, we would certainly invest in anything that grows copper and gold and we would also invest in pure copper, if there was an opportunity where our presence at an address gave us a competitive advantage over the traditional copper mines. So that's really the guidance in which we will operate and I've got the reason that we're going to change the plan. I'll give you a simple example. Jabal Sayid is in an area which is part of the -- what we think the Arabian Shield which we all know as geologists, but we think that that's the same geology as the Nubian Shield, so we call it the Nubian Arabian shield. There's a Zakaria in there which is technically a Tier 1 asset, but there is going to be no other sort of big discoveries like that because no one is really look for it. And our relationship with Ma'aden in Saudi Arabia gives us that opportunity to explore that whole Arabian shield and across the Red Sea into the Nubian shield with a partner that knows how to operate in those jurisdictions. I mean culturally, we've got the geological expertise and they have the geopolitical key. And so it makes sense for and by the way Jabal Sayid has got some significant upside which we are already working on. When we got people who are worrying about whether it could actually deliver on its design and we think it can and certainly geologically it can. And again there's been very little geological modeling or mineral resource manager, no geology-driven business because it's high-grade copper. And so it makes sense for us. And so what we're doing is putting together a dedicated exploration team to evaluate that region and at the same time, we will expand and deliver the full potential on Jabal Sayid and then will make the decisions in the fullest of time, but that asset really does make significant cash flow. And if we can jack it up and its throughput than it's going to make even better cash flow.

Thanks Mark.

Our next question comes from John Bridges of JPMorgan.

Good afternoon Mark. Congratulations on the progress. Keep up the good work with the Spanish. I still struggle with it on occasions within Africans which creates all sorts of problems. Just wondering you've been talking this morning about Acacia and forcing the issue. Does that mean buying out minorities? Is that -- how do you see the way forward with that issue?

So I think all options are on the table whether it's taking out the minorities or encouraging the Acacia Board to run a strategic program or something in between. The problem is that we are not prepared to overpay for these assets. Right now, it's really in a bad space and we need a lot of work to get that back on an even keel and that requires -- and again, I think everyone understands that it's very difficult for Acacia Board to actually run that company. And I'm a bit concerned that all the effort we've made, we don't seem be to be able to get through to anyone. We certainly are making progress with the Tanzanian government, but again there's a standoff of the two parties and we're in the middle trying to facilitate it. And also we have an argument over whether we can exercise our assets as the major shareholder and so it's a very complex situation. And so when you get into that environment, as a mediator, it's difficult because both parties are still trying to keep all options open and it makes a difficult negotiation. So as you see we've been -- we go a few steps forward and a couple of steps back and -- but as I've said before, there is no doubt in my mind when we get to the solution whatever it is, it's going to be good for stakeholders, because right now, it's not good for anyone.

Understood. Understood. I'm a little bit confused because my understanding was Tanzanian wanted to talk to you and the Acacia people want to be involved, but they weren't able to.

Well, yes, to a degree. I mean, that's the lip service. The Tanzanian government are very committed to try to find a solution. The problem is, is there a commitment on both sides and enough courage to be able to close out? And we can't sign anything that we're not prepared to because we're not in a position to legally. So our only role is to be able to play a messenger and end up in which we are well advanced and getting to is try and get an agreement -- the basic detailed agreement that we can deliver to the Acacia Board and its independent community. And then it's up to them to make that decision. It would be a lot easier if Acacia was more engaging in their discussion, but again I think you're seeing everyone protecting a bit of their own turf, because it's a complex situation. There's not a lot of trust left on either side. So we're going to continue working with it. And again, we've assured Acacia that we're working to get this thing done and we will present it to them, but at the same time they've also questioned our right to be able to vote out shares. So in itself it doesn't make -- then you've got to ask the question so why we are here, why doesn't Acacia go do the deal? And the answer is, they can't. So they will eventually get somebody to see reason, I hope. Not from the lack of trying on Barrick, I must say for a long time now.

Okay. Appreciate the color.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from John Tumazos from John Tumazos Very Independent Research.

Thank you. [Foreign Language] So in the quarter Barrick had about a 2% return on equity. Assuming constant gold prices Mark when you got things calming in a couple of years, what's a reasonable target, 6%, 8% for ROE?

[Foreign Language]

[Foreign Language]

So if you look at -- that's a tough question to answer and I think our legal people are going to be cringing about exactly what I'm going to say now. I see it in this audience. So, if you look at our dividend policy -- I mean the dividend we just paid, we can afford it, very much afford it. That's a 1.2% yield. That's significant in the gold industry, making it out of real money. And we just started. So I've said and John Thornton said this too our focus is to drive this business to be able to deliver real value for its stakeholders. In Randgold, we've got the dividend yield up significantly and I've got no doubt that we've got -- on balance we're -- we've got a better portfolio of assets and there's no better way than with the best people and the best assets to produce leading returns. And so it's my objective to be able to become the go-to-gold company when it comes to returns and that's our focus and every reason we have to be able to continue to deliver on that.

[Foreign Language]

This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mark Bristow for closing remarks.

Again, well, thank you very much again for your patience and your questions and do we have -- I mean traditionally we serve a glass of wine or anything, yeah, can we, so you can have a cup of tea or coffee with the team, I think next door. There's refreshments over there. Traditionally in Randgold we use to offer you a glass of wine, but we'll work on that. I think we've got to get a liquor license or something. Thanks very much for your attention. Cheers.

This concludes today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating. Should you have additional questions, please contact the Barrick Investor Relations Department. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.