Barrick Mining Corporation

Welcome to Bearwick's second quarter 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 Bearwick's website later today. I will now turn the call over to Emily Cheng, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

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.

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. 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 lawyers nervous here. So I want to clarify a few misconceptions here. So firstly, the total value of that package is approximately $4 billion. So obviously it in 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. 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. and as we've said, they will be likely returned to the shareholders. So 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. And our interests 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 four months to reach this agreement. So before I get into the results, there's 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. So first, our leadership team. So over the last 10 months, we've improved the operational performance across the entire business. and that's thanks to the strength of our operating site teams, to our GMs and everyone right down through to the mining front. So we've 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're 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. 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, our joint mine ownership and co-investment. And this enables us greater efficiency and supply chain strength, which has helped us control our costs. and partnerships that improve outcomes and reduce our risk. So with this context, let me turn to our results for the quarter. As I said, we've 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'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. We advanced our Growth Projects, 4 Mile to the Miner and the PB Expansion which remain on time and on budget. Not often you hear that in the mining industry. We continue to review RecoDig 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 which Helen will discuss a bit later. And finally, we achieved major milestones in the preparation of our IPO of our North American Gold Accent, which is on track to be completed by the end of the year. So let me move to safety, which is still our number one priority. And our goal is that everyone obviously goes home safe and healthy every day. So we saw a reduction quarter on quarter in our frequency rate between that from 0.92 to 0.77. But disappointingly, we still had six LTIs. So there's still a lot of work to do. It's completely unacceptable and we need to focus on our safety until we get to our target zero harm. So 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're doing more critical control verification and fixing more risks on the spot. On top of that, we've also invested over $90 million this year in technology to improve safety. This includes up to our automation of mining equipment, right down to vehicle dash cams, safety reporting software and AI analytics. And we're also working hard to enter out 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 is in line with the Bloomberg consensus. There's some media out there this morning that says it's not, that we missed, but I'm 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 Luluk and Kotter ahead of schedule, PV ramped up faster than expected after the maintenance shutdown in Q1, and we mined record tonnes 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 God. Our earnings nearly doubled year over year and we more than doubled quarterly shareholder return to $1.5 billion. and the strong performance for Q2 is obviously across all of our regions though North America continue to anchor our world-class portfolio. NGM and PB 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%. COPPA continued to perform well and delivered comparable margins throughout the whole treatment. So moving on to growth, as I said, our growth project advanced on February during the quarter. So four-mile we ramped up the drilling to 20 active rigs and we plan to complete the PFS by the end of 2028. At Lemwina 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'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. We've made progress on permitting and construction across the tailings facility, haul roads and water treatment plants. and we're also very pleased to report that we now have 90% of resettlement packages being accepted. We continue to review RECODIG previously disclosed and we've decided we won't start building the plant this year. So we've reduced our expected 2026 attributable capex. It was six to 700 million and is now 450 to 500 million. So the lowest spend on the mining record has reduced group guidance for 2026 total attributable capex to 3.8 to 4.2 billion. So back to the IPO of our North American assets. So as I said, this entity will be a high quality pure gold play company, which assets are located exclusively in low risk jurisdiction. and what I'm pleased to share is the board has selected me to lead the new company as a CEO upon launch. We've 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. And we expect the vast majority of net proceeds raised to be returned to shareholders. I know several people have asked me in the pub. So I'll now turn it over to Helen Cai, our CFO, who will review our financial performance.

Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. Q2 marked the third consecutive quarter of strong production, house 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 $200 million payment related to Lolo Concato, Combined, this 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. Year-to-date, attributable free cash flow has been $1.4 billion, more than double the same period last year. Turning to the operations, goal production increased 11% put over quarter and exceeded guidance. We continue to operate within our cost guidance, reflecting an acute focus on operational efficiencies to offset fuel price 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 our assets to drive earnings accreted growth. 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 undrawn $3 billion revolving credit facility, and no meaningful debt due until 2033. Turning to our portfolio, Lubana and Formile 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. And finally, we are executing against our capital return 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. 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.

Okay, thank you, Helen. So just on guidance, so our 2026 production and cost design remain unchanged. So for the third quarter, we expect gold production to be higher than Q2, consistent with that plan, 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. So to say it again, since October 2005, we have consistently delivered against our strategic priorities and set a new standard of operational performance. And again, I'd like to congratulate our 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 live on our full year commitment for 2022. So just 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. 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 do that in the morning. and we have advanced our North American IPO onto the world. So we're basically on track to execute against all the four priorities that we set at the start of the year. And so again, I want to say, and of course, we've transformed this relationship with Newmont, which allows it to get full value and expand NGM. So with that, I'll hand it back to the moderator for Q&A. Thank you.

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, 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. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.

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. So I guess what would have been, Mike, in FiberLine within that $1.95 billion, and then perhaps what the adjustments would have been to the prior disputes. Thank you.

Okay so the Josh just to be clear I'm not going to break it down so um on the prior disputes I mean I can't give a number on that 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 I mean now that we have this agreement done we're actually going to go away and optimize this structure for the IPO so as you can imagine that's a bit of a working process that's been But the overall value that we had on the table at the end of this discussion was about $4 million. 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. 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 4 Mile that comes in which is a you know a world-class asset 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 so you know my discussions with Natasha and Newmont right from word go was how do we get this together so we can optimize MGM and by optimize I want to look at increasing processing capacity I want to stop trucking ore all over the state 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 you know to to process four mile and Gold Rush get our cost structure in place and increase our overall ounces. 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 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. And that was obviously my ultimate goal.

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? And could you go larger? And if the company went larger, under what circumstances would there be a shareholder vote?

No, Josh, it'll still stay at 10%. I don't see any of that change. just the way the company is structured. Anyone correct me?

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 pairing it to the current structure, because as Mark said, it's friction costs, but then you can also look at where it's domiciled, et cetera. So there's all these things that we need to go back and look at now that we have the agreement for a few months. And again, as Mark said, that's where the value comes as well. We have this flexibility and optionality.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Josh.

Our next question comes from Tanya Yakushone. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead. Good morning.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you, Tanya. How are you?

How are you? Houston, we've made contact. This is awesome. Congratulations on your new role. Thanks very much. I have two 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 new non-massive plus dispute plus the $2 billion that is a top-up for a total of $6 billion? Is that how I should be thinking about the price paid?

No, Tanya, it's $4 billion total expectation.

Oh, okay. 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 buyback and or the top up dividend at the end of 2026?

Okay, sorry, you're very hard here. But Tanya, I think if I got the question right, so The cash we get back would be the majority of the return to shareholders, correct?

Okay.

And then my final question, Mark, just for some of the processes for this IPO still. 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.

Actually, Tanya, let me hand it over to George. He's more up to date.

So I would say we were 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. 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. So that's where we are at the moment.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Janet.

Our next question comes from Lawson Winder with BOFA Securities. Your line is open. Please submit and go ahead.

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. So to follow up on the 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 2030s? And then, yeah, so that's the first question.

Okay so thanks, look obviously my intention is to accelerate this as fast as possible now that I sort of got through this process I think that that allows us to accelerate it for sure now we're 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'm going to advance that and I've already talked to Natasha about we're going to advance that all in parallel that's why we're driving those declines and doing this drilling 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 a higher production target. That would be my target.

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? So I think you had indicated previously that you'd just be an initial minority interest IPO and that would be it. Is there any thought to eventually IPOing 100% of BNA at this point?

No, so 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. And just by the way, we have 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. So anyway, to answer your question, no, there's no updated. We're going to go past 10%.

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?

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

Again, we just have to go back and look at that. But also, absolutely, there will be a marketing process.

Okay, great. Thank you very much for taking the questions. Thanks, Wilson.

Our next question comes from Anita Soni with CIBC. Your line is open, please unmute and go ahead.

Hi, good morning and Mark, congratulations on your new role and on improving operations at MGM. My first question was with respect to the capital that you were talking about. 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 and then what what can we also expect in terms of NGM capital going forward?

Okay that's a good question Anita. So on the roaster I want to re-optimize the whole The whole process flow. I mean, you've been there several times, so you've seen what it's like. So the roaster, we've actually got HASH looking at it permanently now. I would have said it's two and a half billion dollars. I don't really know, but it'd be around that number. But that will offset a lot of things that should be trucking stuff all over the countryside as well. 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. What else is material that's coming up in NGN? It's brilliant, Mark.

It's obviously our development on formal as required at the market. And the conceptual PAs is the range of $1.5 to $1.7 billion that we'll be spending over the next few years on formal. And apart from that, that's really the items that we've got in our capital portfolio there. We are planning this year to pull some capital forward for the expenditure that we have on replacing our truck fleets at Turquoise Ridge and actually a key project for us is also driving Autonomous Hauling that we have at Carlin and Ben's Hauling is successful for those projects but we still also expect to land our capital in 945 for North America so those are the key projects.

Thanks Chris. Does that answer Nathan?

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 the PFS with a different type of structure, I guess, in terms of what you're looking for infrastructure. But would this PEA, like, should that not 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'll give you bare essentials in terms of how to model this. And so you're seeing wide degrees of variance in terms of what people are modeling for four mile. 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, it's a fair question. Do you reckon that's why our share price is down sevens?

Well, I mean, if everyone's debating whether or not there's, you know, what the two 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.

Okay. I haven't got a good answer to that.

I mean, when we filed or when we issued the PEA, it was conceptual in nature and, you know, still up to a technical order.

Okay. But innately you're saying you haven't got enough information, basically.

Yeah. I mean, yeah, there were a lot of... things that are unknown in terms of mining methodology, unit costs, right? There was, you know, we didn't know about this NPI, right? That was one major thing that was embedded in there, but nobody knew about. So anyway, I'll leave it there. I also just wanted to ask in terms of...

Hang on, let me just... Sure. But we will take that away, right, and see how we can do a better job. And I understand what you're asking, so I'll work something out and come back to it.

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 I'm assuming and by the math, I would assume that you're so Newmont is paying in for four mile, but they're also exchanging their you guys are reciprocally paying for their 38.5% of four mile and Mike. and so it's a net, it's like I guess it's 61.5% that they're vending in of those specific assets to get to a collective $4 billion. Is that the right way to look at it?

Yeah, so the right way is just we're paying for 61.5% of market fiber line and that other settlement amount, which we're certainly not going to get into. Look, Anita, we agree we're just going to go out with a number, and that was quite a bit. I apologize, but I can't give you that breakdown.

Okay. All right. I guess with the IPO coming up, people are trying to understand what that significant component of 4 Mile is. So any additional information would be helpful. Thank you. I'll leave it there.

Thanks, Anita. Appreciate it.

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

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 Bible Line and Mike and 38.5% of 4 Mile? Or is it...

just the four mile component can you just sorry if that's already been stated sorry so when you net everything together and anyone jump in here if I get this wrong right so to get to the 4b in number it is the value of uh four mile the 38 percent then you have to net off the value of um 61 and a half percent of fiber line and mine there is some money in there for um to settle some legacy disputes, for want of another word, right, 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. I'll probably make it very complicated, Daniel, but...

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 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?

I would say it's comparable. and hopefully if we, depending where we locate that roaster, you could actually see if you want to say something.

There is one point that we would raise, and sorry, it's Bessel Allen speaking. The basic ratings that we put up by the conceptual PA were naturally based at the consensus gold prices at the time, which from memory was around about $2,500 or just in excess. So if you do apply today's long-term analyst consensus prices of $3,600 an ounce, is about $100 sensitivity for every $1,000 that the gold price moves. So the right way to look at it is to say the range we put up previously plus $100 to take into account the fact that the gold price has moved by $1,000. 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.

Okay. And sorry, the line wasn't totally clear. So at $3,600, you'd add $100 to the $650 to $700. Was that what you alluded to, just to be clear? That is correct, yes. And that incorporates the tech NPI sensitivity in there? Correct. Includes all royalties including the debt. Okay. Okay, that's good. And then so just final question on this. In terms of the, 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? I'm not sure I understand that question, Daniel. There is a net off against displacing other material from the process plants. How is that adjustment made?

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 models for it and all of the data and went right back and took all of that into account when we came up with these things.

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?

Look, so we're advancing that discussion, right? And for the next slide, it's about it. 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.

Okay. Thanks so much for the questions. Thanks, Daniel.

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

Hey, good morning, Mark and Helen. Congrats on the strong quarter. Thank you for taking my question. I want to pivot to a slightly different topic here. I'm wondering if you can discuss some more detailed ramp plans for Lulugangutu specifically in regard to the push into open pit ore. What sort of capex may be required to support this and your risk appetite to do so?

Okay, thanks, Ben. I'm going to hand it over to you guys.

So I think the best way to explain Earth on Kata 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. 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 Boboto pushbacks and the open pits on probably early or middle of this second quarter. so that's I think most I can say at the moment we are still looking at you know optimizing those plans but certainly we we would be starting to move into into the open pits in the first half of next year thanks all right thanks for that context and then maybe on the production cadence overall I know you gave some commentary mark on the back cap for both gold and copper but

You know, NGM and PV tracking towards the high end, LG tracking ahead. So what level of conservatism do you feel is kind of baked in at this stage?

Well, I don't think it's conservatism necessarily, but look, we're going to hit our guides, as I said. Just, I suppose, to put something else on the table, we've had Balladero down for, I think it's two weeks now, but we've had as 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 in Argentina. So that has hit us and Polgar 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'm still confident we're hitting guidance and you're right, NGEM's in a good place and so is PV, we have had some other issues throughout the portfolio and nothing, both of them are actually, you know, mother nature events. They're not actually operational problems, but... So I still think the guidance is fine, but it's certainly not conservative.

Understood. And then real quick, just wondering how turnover trends at NGM during the quarter if you're still in the mid-teens range.

Who's got 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. It's a good question, and it's something we are actually focused on is you know making Barrick and especially NGM the employer of choice right and it's not that long ago that everyone wanted a job with Barrick and so uh we we are working on that and as I said the culture at NGM despite what might have been in some articles has uh in my opinion turned around completely right and and you can tell that just by the performance that I said you know their production performance their safety performance just when you go the attitude of the workforce is certainly better than it was. But I'll get you the actual number if you can note that down. But we'll come back to you.

Understood. Thank you. Best of luck. Thanks, Ben.

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

Matthew, I can't hear you if you're talking.

Matthew, can you hear us?

Okay.

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

Good morning. A broader question, and then maybe I'll follow up with the MGM. 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? And is that going to be slowed down by the IPO process? Sorry, Bob, just explain that to me a bit more. What do you mean by that? So think of all of the assets you have. There's 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 27?

Actually, so, Bob, the rest of the world Portfolio is actually one of our biggest growth things. We talk about MGM a lot, but actually just at our recent board meeting, actually, we had a whole session on growth for the rest of the world because of the potential you've seen, what's going on at Lumana and even around Kibale and what we can do there. So the plan, the current plan is to really grow the rest of the world, and that's what the focus will be. And Seb, if you want to...

I think you've 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 in terms of what Mark suggested around the partnerships that we're able to leverage. A real embedded growth profile, especially brownfields growth around most of our operations. So you have already embedded infrastructure and of course, that's probably the lowest cost answers you're going to add into your production profile. And then, as you said, we've got the Moana expansion on the conference.

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

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? No, it's done. Okay, very clear. Thank you. Thanks.

Our next question comes from Stephen Green with TD Covent. Your line is open, please unmute and go ahead.

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. 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. Okay.

Thanks, David. So look, on the permitting, obviously we want to get the full amount of take-home services out first. 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 understand what we can do as far as processing before I can even start the permitting 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 on the permits and that sort of thing. But now that we've got this agreement in place, we are going to sit down and completely optimise Nevada and that ore flow. And I know Newmont is supportive also of increasing processing capacity. And Stephen, we always get into the same discussion that we're going to have to fresh out, which is Autoplay versus ROSA and and where it should be positioned. And I just haven't got a clear answer on that, but that's what we'll be accelerating starting tomorrow.

Okay, thanks. And 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?

Actually, anyone 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, Stephen.

Okay, thanks. And where roughly are those properties and kind of how far advanced are they?

So Farber Line is close to the infrastructure of Turquoise Ridge. And I think that is a reasonable status. It's an open pit, so it would be a matter of a satellite deposit. And Mike, at this stage, I haven't put a lot of value towards that, mainly Farber Line. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks, David.

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

Hi, thank you for taking my question. I wonder if you have given any thought about floating 10% of the X North America as well. 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. 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.

OK, 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.

OK, and the second question I have is, in other expenses, there was this 200 million for Lulongkoto, because you are applying, if I understand correctly, the 2023 law retroactively. Was that part of the original agreement? And if it was, why it was not included in the previous quarter?

I'd like this is a bit of a fluid situation, as you can probably imagine. But let me hand it over to Helen to explain it.

Hi, thank you for the question. The nature of the spending is additional royalties, penalties, and associate interest based on the retrospective application of the 2023 mining code specifically for the year of 2024 and 2025. So previously we had already settled anything related to 2023 and earlier years, but this is specifically for the 2024 and 2025. In terms of the amount paid, we paid cash 400 million in April and also we had a further payment amount of 48 million that was received in July. I hope that answers your question.

No, I'm just curious why it was not included in the previous quarters, like it was part of the regional agreement, it wouldn't have been provision or something?

Yeah, maybe you can add to that. 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. And this was that payment effectively. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you.

Thanks.

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

Yeah, 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. 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're able to disclose, I think would be very helpful.

Well, I think there's a couple of things. Firstly, just as a general thing, it's not actually in the joint venture agreement, but the way we've approached this is completely different. Newmont will have access to whatever information and the site and and we've already done that with Francois and now with David their technical lead too and then they come and give any feedback they can and any suggestions which you know 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 don't have an issue with that at all. So I think that's fair enough. And then the other part was which we agree, which I also think would be quite helpful now that we've reset this relationship and actually we want to advance this as quickly as possible, is that we're likely in bed in our executive team at NGM and Newmont Employee, which I think will help. 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. So at a high level, that's what we agreed. There was some other things around excluded property committees and other things like that, but really that's been taken care of for the fact we've bought 4 Mile and Michael Fireblown and those things into the joint venture. So it's probably less relevant.

Okay, that's very helpful. And if I could ask, follow up on the question about the CEO search for Barrick Mining parent, can you share this if there's a preference between an internal or external candidate?

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. Candidates, that's all I really can say. My preference is Austin Chintern. Okay, great. Thanks very much, Mark. Thanks a lot, Loz.

I will now turn the call over to Emily Chin.

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? Shares of Nevada and PV are distributed to current shareholders rather than diluting existing holders?

Okay, who asked the question? Daniel. I know Daniel, like a lot of people ask that question, so the short answer is no. Anything else, Emily?

That's it. Thank you. I'll turn it back to the moderator.

Thank you.

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